Loading...
LUTC PKT 11-15-2004 \ ~ \ E:1 v {e~ MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 18, 2004 3. PUBUC COMMENT (3 minutes) BUSINESS ITEMS 4. \ A. Sound Transit Phase II B. 2005 Street Sweeping Services Contract - Bid Award c. 2005 Right of Way Landscaping Maintenance - Bid Award D. East Branch Lakota Creek Restoration - 85% Design Status Report E. City Center Access Study Briefing No.4 - Screening Level 2 Results & Options to Move Forward to Screening Level 3 F. Resolution to Document Compliance with the Growth Management Act 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS 6. ADJOURN Info Sound Transit Staff/45 Min Action Salloum/5 Min Action Salloum/5 Min Action Bucich/i0 Min Action Zukowski/30 Min Action Clark/iS Min Committee Members Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison Michael Park K:\COUNOL\LUTC STAFFING - 2004\11-15-04 AGENDA.doc City Staff Cary M. Roe, Public Works Director Krystal Kelsey, Administraäve Assistant 253-835-2701 City of Federal Way City Council land Use & Transportation Committee October 4, 2004 5:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers ---~ ----._--------- -~----- - - -----------------~-. MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee Members Jack Dovey, Chair, Eric Faison and Michael Park; Mayor Dean McColgan; Deputy Mayor Linda Kochmar, Council Member Jeanne Burbidge, Council Member Jim Ferrell; City Manager David Moseley; Deputy City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller; City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Street Systems f'1anager Mar,van Salloum; Development Services Manager William Appleton; Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung; Deputy Community Development Director Greg Fewins; Associate Planner Deb Barker; Associate Planner Isaac Conlen; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Contract Planner Janet Shull and Administrative Assistant Krystal Kelsey. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The summary minutes of the October 4, 2004 meeting were approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Proposed 2005 - 2010 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Arterial Street Improvement Plan (ASIP) - Mr. Perez presented the staff report to the Committee. The Committee discussed concerns with the projects listed on the TIP. Committee Member Faison specifically referenced his concerns with projects 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15 & 22 because of double-left turn lanes. Mr. Perez cited the difficulty of providing enough time for left-turn, pedestrian, and through movements while meeting the adopted level of services standards overall cycle length of 120 seconds. The most viable option is to provide double left turn movements so that through traffic and pedestrians have adequate time to move through intersections. Mr. Perez also mentioned installing more roundabouts instead of signalized intersections and/or modifying the adopted level of services standards to increase the length of acceptable signal cycles. The Committee inquired about how many of the projects were necessary for safety improvements. Mr. Perez answered that most, if not all, the projects included safety improvements - especially those on Hwy 99. The Committee discussed the funding status for each of the projects on the TIP. The Committee inquired about impacts to the City Center Access Study if it were delayed by the budget. Mr. Perez answered that the study has a shelf life of three years once a preferred alternative is identified. The Committee summarized that the main objective of publishing these projects is so that legislators and elected officials more readily recognize them when funding is requested. Chair Dovey recused himself from voting on this item since he is directly impacted by one of the projects, Pacific Hwy South HOV Lanes Phase III. The Committee m/s/c to place the staff recommendation on the November 2, 2004 Council Consent Agenda. B. Code Compliance Briefing - This item was pulled from the agenda. It was recommended that it be moved to the November 2, 2004 full City Council Emerging Issues Agenda. C. Annexation Policy Issues - Mr. Conlen presented the staff report to the Committee. Mr. Conlen requested direction from the Committee, based upon the options and recommendations presented in his staff report. The Committee approved the following options: Item 1: Item 2: Item 3: Item 4: D. Ventana Final Plat - Effective Date of Annexations (Timing) - Approved Option 2; January 1, 2005, provided King County is able to review and approve the interlocal agreement by that date. If the County is not ready by January 1, 2004, staff recommends the effective date be no later than February 28, 2005. Nonconforming Sign Policy- Approved Option 3; Require non-conforming signs to come into compliance by a specified deadline from the effective date of annexation, consistent with current requirements of FWCC Section 22-335. Money from King County - The Committee requested that staff approach King County to inquire about the methods they are using to allocate the $10,000,000 incentive. If the funds will be disbursed based on the percentage of area annexed, then request that amount. Otherwise, the Committee would approve Option 2 - Request funds equal to the City's annexation processing and start-up costs (estimated at $50,000 - $100,000). Review Responsibility for Vested Permitting Actions- Approved Option 1; Allow the County to continue processing all vested land use and building permits. The Committee clearly emphasized a desire to control permitting at the earliest date possible. All permits applied for prior to the effective date will be processed by King County. The City will control all permits applied for after the effective date. Mr. Patrick Redmond asked that the Committee deny approval of this project based upon his claim that the developer has not met the requirements of the Hearing Examiner. Specifically, Mr. Redmond contends that the developer was required to construct a retaining wall bordering the rear of his property. Instead, the developer left a 20-foot wall of dirt that he feels is extremely unsightly. Mr. Redmond stated that he feels the City has been misled and that the Committee is misinformed of the project status. Mr. Redmond requested that Committee and Council members visit his property prior to approving this plat so that they can observe the conditions he claims exit. Mr. Carl Hanson spoke on behalf of his friends, the Condos, who are out of town and unable to speak on their own behalf in opposition to this project. The Condos feel that the boundary lines are misrepresented on the King County short plat submitted by the Condos as number 8528. tñe property owners contend that the installation of the drainage line has been installed on the Condos private property and request mitigation so that litigation is not necessary. Mr. Michael Condos, a property owner on SW 305 also spoke against the project and contends that the repaving of SW 30Sh now extends two feet onto his private property and over his underground power lines. Mr. Condos claims that he just had the property surveyed, and that the City's survey is incorrect. 7ñerefore, Mr. Condos warns that the project should not be passed. Mrs. Jan Craig who lives at the corner of 5W 304h and 24" SW spoke to the Committee regarding the loss of trees and the wind direction change caused by removing 200 trees in Ventana. Mrs. Craig claims that she lost five ornamental trees estimated at $5,000 by an arborist. Mrs. Craig further requested aeration of the drainage pond to avert the threat of mosquitoes. Mr. Don Bunger lives on SW 30tfh Place. Mr. Bunger requested aeration of the pond. Mr. Bunger feels that a $3,000 pump, connected to the power source near the pond, would alleviate the stagnant water and diminish the threat of a mosquito habitat Mr. Tom Barghausen, with Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. made the Committee aware of his presence and his willingness to answer any questions the Committee might have. G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 200410ctober 18. 2004 LUTC Minutes doc Ms. Barker gave the staff report to the Committee, including visual presentation materials. The Committee discussed the claims of the citizens at the beginning of this agenda item. Mr. Miller, Deputy Public Works Director addressed the concerns of Mr. Redmond, Mr. Condos, and Ms. Bunger. In regards to Mr. Redmond, Mr. Miller explained that staff felt the change in the retaining wall to a slope was not a significant issue because it was a suitable solution to the drainage issue and the plans were previously approved on a preliminary basis. Staff explained that plans often change from the preliminary plat to the final plat. The Committee requested that Mr. Barghausen address the concerns raised by citizens earlier in the evening. Mr. Barghausen replied that the drainage pond had been built to City code and that the City could certainly exercise the option to install its own aeration/fountain device, as it will ultimately be responsible for maintaining and servicing the device. Mr. Barghausen did not feel that he could specifically address the loss of the ornamental trees, as he did not have enough first hand knowledge about the claim by Mrs. Craig, but felt her concerns would not be unrealistic. The funneling of wind toward the Craig property will eventually be resolved when the homes are built, thereby buffering the property from wind. Regarding the claims by the Condos, Mr. Barghausen stated that there is a difference of opinion about the validity of the Condos surveys completed by the Condos. There are three recorded surveys that agree within half a foot of each other about the location of the property corners. The Condos' survey, which locates the property line 16 feet from the recorded property line, is a duplicate of a survey completed in 1971, but never recorded. This issue is a private issue between two property owners, and may eventually be settled in court. However, this dispute should not be considered a reason to deny approval on this plat. Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. did not submit the preliminary plat drawings. Mr. Barghausen's understanding is that the preliminary plat is just that - no engineering has been completed; the preliminary plat simply shows that the project can feasibly be built and shows the basic functions of the plat. The condition in questions reads, ". . . if a retaining wall is required. . ." and not "a retaining wall shall be required." Later, when reviewing the plans, it was determined that the best thing would be to install a slope, which is safer, better for drainage, is grassed in and becomes the part of someone's yard. Trees will still be planted at the bottom of the slope, and would often be viewed to be more aesthetically pleasing than a rock retaining wall. The slope has been grassed in for a year, and was built under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer with engineered fill. The slope wintered very well and has not shown any problems, not even surface failures. A 2:1 slope that has proven itself by wintering well should not be considered a concern. The Committee inquired about the options they have at this point. Mr. Fewins answered that the Committee must either find that the project is in significant compliance (not total or full, but significant) and therefore approve the plat, or find that the project is not in significant compliance and then deny approval of the plat. The decision is at the Council's discretion. After significant discussion about the slope bordering the Redmond property, Chair Dovey suggested forwarding the item to the November 2, 2004 City Council Consent Agenda, and use the time in the interim to personally research the Hearing Examiner's findings, and visit the Redmond property. Chair Dovey expressed that moving the item forward would keep the project on schedule, and allow ample time to research the issues with the project. Staff shall provide the following information at the November 2, 2004 Council meeting: a. Hearing Examiner's recommendation on preliminary plat b. Pictures of the Redmond Property and the current condition of the pond. c. A list of other concerned property owners, if known. At the direction of the Committee, staff shall also provide a presentation at a future LUTC meeting to review the Hearing Examiner process. Committee Member Park made the following motion: - "Move the staff recommendation for the purpose of fO/warding to the full Council and we can take look at its issues within two weeks. If there is uncertainty involved, then we can delay final decision at the second Council meeting. That is my recommendation. " The motion was seconded and carried. G:\lUTC\lUTC Agendas and Summaries 2DO4\October 18. 2DO4lUTC Minutes.doc E. CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS AND WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS CODE AMENDMENT (Follow Up Report) - Ms. Shull gave the staff report and provided the Committee with the additional information requested by the Committee, including a letter from Lane Powell Spears Lubersky LLP received earlier in the day. The Committee requested that maps with newly identified private wells be provided to them. The Committee m/s/c to place the staff recommendation on the November 2, 2004 Council Consent Agenda. 5. FUTURE MEmNG/AGENDA ITEMS 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. G:IlUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 20041October 18. 2004 LUTC Minutes.doc OCTOBER 2004 ~ SOUND TRANSIT, Building a regional mass transit system .... Planning for the future With the initial pieces of a regional mass transit system now moving more than 35,000 people a day, Sound Transit is looking at ways to meet our region's future growth and transportation demands. puget Sound is expected to grow b'y 1.2 million people over the next 20 years and getting around is going to be more challenging than ever. That's why Sound Transit is updating environmental and transportation studies from the '90s to see how regional mass transit improvements can help keep us moving and manage future growth. A draft supplemental environmental impact statement will be released in November and available to the public for comment and suggestions. Regional transit (}16..Ê. V. erett taking shape II Mukilteo"" ~ . South Everett £. 1'.- LYfnWOOd ¡5 " Edmonds <> ¡> . ( PMlT "'- W D.'..OdinVilie Bothell ~ . '" .," North at :: Kirkland Ô' f 0 <>--Redmond - -District {C. D Sound Transit district boundary ¡ Auburn ST Express bus service <r Sounder train :. service -....... Lin'k light rail service ./ 0 Hav access ramp or improvement 0 Capital project or rail station L. ,,-- ~ Sound Transit will finalize those studies in the spring of '05 and use those results to update the agency's Long-Range Plan for a regional transportation system. The long-Range Plan, first adopted in 1996, is the region's "roadmap" for what the future system will look like. Off to a good start Back in 1996 Puget Sound citizens voted to build the first phase of a new region-wide mass transit system connecting our largest cities and job centers with light rail, commuter rail and express bus services. Sound Transit was given the job of building this system in keeping with the long-Range Plan that looked at where we work, live and how we're going to grow in the decades ahead. With 10,000 new park-and-ride spaces filled every weekday, commuter trains and express buses running up and down Central puget Sound, light rail in Tacoma carrying thousands a day and a major light rail system under construction in Seattle, Sound Transit is delivering on that first assignment. In the process, Sound Transit has carried more than 34 million passengers on our buses and trains over the last five years. We have built the foundations of that first phase of our regional transit system and it is connecting more than 35,000 people a day with their jobs, loved ones, sporting events and homes. . link light rail - Tacoma Link has already carried more than 800,000 riders since opening in August, 2003. Major construction worth $1 billion is underway on Central Link in Seattle. . Sounder commuter rail - Sounder has already served 2 + million riders on 82 miles of track between Everett and Tacoma. . Regional Express bus service - Sound Transit regional Express buses have carried more than 30 million riders on 19 express bus routes connecting the region: Issaquah to Seattle; Federal Way to Bellevue; lakewood to Sea-Tac Airport; Woodinville, Redmond, Gig Harbor to Seattle. . Transit Centers, HOV ramps, Park & Ride lots - Sound Transit has invested more than $850 million in new park-and-ride lots, direct access ramps and transit centers. continued on back Sound Transit I Union Station I 401 S. Jackson St, Seattle WA 98104 (800) 201-4900 I (888) 713-6030 TTV I main@soundtransitorg I www.soundtransitorg Phase 2: The next generation With updated environmental studies and a Long-Range Plan that accounts for new growth, Sound Transit will continue working with the public to set priorities for Phase 2 - the next s~t of investments in our regional mass transit system. Thes,e Phase 2 projects will build directly on the system that is up and running today to create more options for getting you where you need to go. Sound Transit will work extensively with the public to set priorities on a wide range of Phase 2 options, including: . extending light rail and commuter rai/lines . adding more bus rapid transit facilities, like transit centers, or adding new routes . increasing hours of operation for all services . determining the best technologies for moving people where they need to go in the next phase Sound Transit will develop Phase 2 priorities with input from the public, local cities and counties, elected officials, civic groups, planning groups, and our transit partners among others. Once the priorities are finalized, the Sound Transit Board will adopt the Phase 2 plan, scheduled for mid-2006. Sound Transit-Connecting the region Make your voice heard Sound Transit needs to hear from you. If you'd like to be notified when the initial draft of the environmental studies are released in November please contact us through: . Phone: - Call (206) 398-5000 to be notified when new studies are released - Call (206) 781-3598 to comment on the environmental plans . E-mail: main@soundtransitorg . Mail: Sound Transit 401 S. Jackson St Seattle, WA 98104 To request printed materials in alternative formats please call (206) 689-4927 or (888) 713-6030 TrY. MAJOR MilESTONES LONG-RANGE PLAN / PHASE 2 PLAN SCHEDULE SE IS ScoplneJ Dratt SEIS IS"UC>c!. Public comment on Draft SEIS Findl SEIS I"sued Public involvement. "UI.()': ~ SOUND TRANSIT Sound Transit - Phase II Planning DRAFT - For Discussion Only September 7, 2004 South Corridor - Phase II Projects BUS COMMUTER RAIL ELECTRIC RAIL Extensions of . Route 565 extension from Federal . Extension to Dupont . S 200th to Kent-Des-Moines Road Existing Way to South Hill . Kent-Des Moines Road to S 272nd Services* . S 272nd to Federal Way . S I 54th to Burien Service . Route 590 series enhancements . Increase to 30 trains/day - Expansions Dupon tIT acoma/S eatt1 e Enhancements to . Fleet expansion for service . Parking expansion, pedestrian . Fleet expansion for additional service Existing Facilities improvements and demand growth bridges, and other rider amenities at Tacoma Dome Station bus layover selected stations . . Fleet expansion for additional service NEW Capital . SR 167 @ James St center HaV lane . Frederickson to Tacoma line . Tacoma to Federal Way Projects* direct access N. Summer/Pacific Station . . 1-5 @ Industrial Way HaV lane direct access . PT base capacity expansion NEW Service . New route along SR 167 serving Sounder'stations during non-Sounder hours of operation . New route along SR 167 and 1-405 corridor from Puyallup to Auburn to .. Bellevue * Includes stations with associated parking facilities as appropriate K:\LUTC\2004\11-15-04 SOUND TRANSIT TABLE.DOC CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: November 15,2004 Land Use and Transportation Committee David H. M~anager Marwan Salloum~.E.: Street Systems Manager SUBJECT: 2005 Street Sweeping Services Contract - Bid Aw POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council award the 2005 Street Sweeping Service Contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder? BACKGROUND: Four bids were received and opened on October 20, 2004 for the 2005 Street Sweeping Services Contract, please see attached Bid Tabulation Summary. The total bids for this contract are as follows: Company McDonough & Sons Action Services Corp. Ms. Lloyd, Inc. Davidson-Marcri Sweeping, Inc. Available Budget Amount Bid Amount $62,053.74 $67,565.56 $72,532.56 $116,578.08 $74,605.00 The lowest responsive, responsible bidder is McDonough & Son Inc. with a total bid of $62,053.74. The amount available in the 2005 budget for this contract is $74,605. OPTIONS: 1. Award the 2005 Street Sweeping Services Contract to McDonough & Son Inc., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder in the amount of $62,053.74 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. 2. Reject all bids for the 2005 Street Sweeping Services Contract and direct staff to rebid the project and return to Committee for further action 3. Do not award the 2005 Street Sweeping Services Contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the December 7, 2004 City Council Consent Agenda for Approval: 1. Motion to award the 2005 Street Sweeping Services Contract to McDonough & Son Inc., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder in the amount of$62,053.74 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. 2. Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. November 15, 2004 Land Use and Transportation Committee 2005 Street Sweeping Contract. Bid Award Paf!e 2 0(2 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA nON: Forward the above staff recommendation to the December 7, 2004 City Council Consent Agenda. ..Al)l;liÔv AI.. 0.' CO~:IMlTi'EI<~ REI)ORT~ ' '>'.' .:. . " ..' . . .. ... ."" .....' n._- - -- _u.. _.- .. .' , , . " " :f/~~"7'~':"-~ï~~k'-Í>ovcv~ cï;~ï~'~' ";~- .--- --""l\.Üchac) I-ark, Mcml~~"""- "~E-;'¡c ];'áisoíî~i:Mëmb'èr:,,<r ~';-,- .';,: ': : "': :, "i""i." :'." ;. ,:" . '. ' .", . '," " .:.:,~:,:-,!!"~:.":C.::'.!.'.',:'_.'-...- ,..=.._......._.--..._=~,.,~-,....._...~-~."....._~".,.. -="'~~"""- ...,......_~-..... - . K:\LUTC\?OO4\2005 Street Sweeping Strvi«'s Bid Aw"rd.DOC CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: November 15 2004 Land Use and Transportation Committee ~ David H. M~anager \ ---/ Marwa~ Sal;ou", '\',.~.: S~ect .system.s Manager, ." /?--~._...- 2005 RIght of Way Lalldscaplllg Mallltellallce 'èollttact - B,d Award POLICY QUESTION: Should Council award the 2005 Right of Way Landscaping Maintenance Contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder? BACKGROUND: Five bids were received and opened on November 3, 2004 for the 2005 Right of Way Landscaping Maintenance Contract. The total bids for this contract are as follows: Company TruGreen LandCare, LLC Osaka Gardens, Inc. Northwest Landscape, Co. Northwest Landscape Service Green Effects Bid Amount $129,964.86 $137,991.04 $146,188.37 $157,409.66 $210,506.24 $160,000.00 Available Budget Amount The lowest responsive, responsible bidder is TruGreen LandCare, LLC with a total bid of $129,964.86. The amount available in the 2005 budget for this contract is $160,000. OPTIONS: 1. Award the 2005 Right of Way Landscaping Maintenance Contract to TruGreen LandCare LLC, the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in the amount of $129,964.86 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. 2. Reject all bids for the 2005 Right of Way Landscaping Maintenance Contract and direct staff to rebid the project and return to Committee for further action. 3. Do not award the 2005 Right of Way Landscaping Maintenance Contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the December 7, 2004 City Council Consent Agenda for Approval: 1. Motion to award the 2005 Right of Way Landscaping Maintenance to TruGreen LandCare LLC, the lowest responsive, responsible bidder in the amount of$129,964.86 2. Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. November 15, 2004 Land Use and Transportation Conmlillee 2005 Right of Way Landscaping Maintef/ance Cof/tract Bid Award Paf!e 2 0(2 COMMITTEE RECOMMEND A nON: Forward the staff recommendations to the December 7, 2004 City Council Consent Agenda. -....".-.." n. ". - _n_...~=-..=_._.~= , ' A.PI)I{OVAI. OF COMì\nTTEtREPORT: -r-:" ~ .,; ~ ',' " --.-----...'.."-.'--.--."'....-.."..."- ,:'i ,Jack:])o\'c~', Chair' . .,' --':":"_~".';""~._""'-'.: ';, "'" --~_.~--~ ..ì\~icl) icl .Park~ 'M~mbcr, ,::~:~/'~/;.:'!¡?i,: :;;Erié F'aison,~'clllber:,,', . 0,'" "" " , '..'" " ".., , .. ',,' .",' " .'.' . , , , , , , .. ,..:~~-- .. -=--- . .- ~.~~_.- ".~=_..n_.- - .~-~~=-,.-.~. ".".-=-- =: ---.- ,-=-- ~",,~=- . k:\ lt¡('\:~OO4\2005 light of way landscaping mainknuncc- bid uward,do(' CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: November 15,2004 Jack Dovey, Chair Land Use an_~~~~ation Committee David H. M,_u:,Manager Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manage;ét1~) AG 03-058 East Brallch Lakota Creek Restoratioll- 85% Desigll Status Report TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: POLICY QUESTION: Should Surface Water Management continue with design of the East Branch Lakota Creek Restoration Project in accordance with the SWM Capital Facilities Plan approved by the Council in 2002? BACKGROUND: This project restores approximately 2,625 lineal feet of the East Branch of Lakota Creek from the mouth of the creek, upstream to SR 509 at Lakota Park (the upstream limit); including an unnamed tributary (hereafter referred to as the North Tributary), an approximately 500-foot-Iong right-bank tributary. Several fish passage impediments will be eliminated; selected stream banks stabilized, and fish habitat structures added. In addition, stormwater flows will be tight lined from the upper end of the North Tributary to the East Branch to reduce channel erosion in the North Tributary and reduce sediment input to the East Branch. The LUTC Committee approved the 30% design stage of the project on January 12,2004. This memo provides a brief synopsis of the progress to date. Currently, the project design is approximately 85% complete and includes the following completed tasks: . The Topographical Survey and Mapping Hydrological and Hydraulic Analysis Stream Geomorphology Assessment Fish Use, Passage, and Habitat Assessment JARP A and Biological Evaluation Determination and Section 404 Permitting SEP A DNS Determination Geotechnical Exploration and Analysis Final Design Survey Pickups Obtaining All Necessary Easements Project Design Engineering and PS&E to 85% . . . . . . . . . Ongoing Tasks Include: . Obtaining Hydraulic Project Approval (HP A) permit . Obtaining Community Development Department Director's Approval . Project Design to 100% Estimated Project Expenditures: Preliminary Design Final Design Year 2004 Construction (Estimate) 10% Construction Contingency 15% Construction Management Total Project Costs: Total Available Budget: $162,518 $57,844 $582,384 $58,238 $87,358 $948,342 $1,480,597 November 15,2004 Land Use and Transportation Committee AG 03-058 East Branc" Lakota Creek Restoration 85% Design Status Report Po!!e 2 0(2 PROJECT SA VINGS AND CONTINGENCY: Current project estimates indicate a savings of up to $532,255, contingent upon final bids and the stream's response to winter storms this year. If a large event occurs, the design may need to be modified as was necessary on earlier stream restoration projects. OPTIONS: . Positives Complies with SWM CFP Negatives 1. Recommend Surface Water Management continue with design to 100%. . None 2. Recommend Surface Water Management discontinue project. . Cost savings to Utility. . Continued degradation to aquatic resource. Likely damage to recent main stem restoration efforts due to deposition of erosion materials from East Branch. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the December 7,2004 City Council Consent Agenda for approval: Motion to authorize Surface Water Management staff to proceed with design of the East Branch Lakota Creek Restoration Project, returning to the LUTC Committee at the 100% design completion stage for authorization to bid. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the staff recommendation to the December 7, 2004 City Council Consent Agenda. , ' , , ", ~, "",,:,;,:¡,.',t,/~1t¡;;;i':~':i'.);::'~';~":, ..,:'.' " ' : <?',:::~.,;~¡<' :;':::,'", """ ",' ,:' ':' ~;";" ' -"-"-"'U" , , . ,""", 'API)ROV AL'OF COMM.lTTEt: IU:PORT:>~',"';' ." " ' . . "',,,,' ':'~"'" '" , , '.:/f,:," ,:'. :~,:,i;;'f~~:,:?¡::"¡:,;;iì~W~/,, Jack Dovcy, Chair Michacll'ark,~1clllbc~" : ,-' ,v:':':';.':'.\EricI,'aison,Mcmbcr"" ,",:.,i'" : " '. ,,' , ---,-,-'.'-,.,----.-...._u._-- ,,_..- '. -,-,--~~~-. -=-"""~,,,," ",~-"--,,,"'~-~-,- -..-.- --..--- .,-_. - ---- --- cc: Project File - East Branch Lakota Creek AG 03-058 Day File k:".lulc...~OfJ4\11-] :)-04 ~:1,1 !akot.,k crldz X,""'. doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: November 15, 2004 Land Use and Maryanne Zukowski, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer ¥Y' l (pç) SUBJECT: CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY - BRIEFING NO.4 Screening Level 2 Results & Options to Move Forward to Screening Level 3 POLICY QUESTION: Should the options, as presented from the Level 2 screening and endorsed by both the Core Support and Stakeholder Teams, continue to Screening Level 3? BACKGROUND: The City of Federal Way, in conjunction with our project partners, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Federal Highways Administration (FHW A), Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), and the additional supporting agencies (the "Core Team") are perfonning a feasibility study to detennine viable access solutions to the safety issues and the congestion at the interchange of S 320th Street and Interstate 5 access to the Federal Way City Center. The interchange is experiencing significant congestion for many hours of the day and is currently at capacity. If a successful and viable access solution is found, Federal Way will proceed in developing an Access Point Decision Report (APDR) to submit to the WSDOT. With City and State approval the report would go to the FHW A. An APDRis the initial step required by FHW A before changing an interstate highway interchange. This is the fourth in a series of Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) briefing updates of the current schedule and milestones accomplished to date for the project. The previous three briefings included: Briefint! No.1. December 15.2003: Presented the Public Involvement and Communications Plan, the Project Work Plan, the Purpose and Need statement, the project issues map, and the study area of the project. Briefint! No.2. April 5. 2004: Provided an update from project beginning to the development of 47 project alternatives in this project study. Briefint! No.3. Aut!ust 16.2004: Presented 15 options retained for further evaluation, analysis, and scoring. Briefing No.4 Presents the Following: . 15 options evaluated at Level 2 Screening . Level 2 Screening results - overview of Technical Memorandum No.9 (TM 9) . Core Support Team recommendations for options to forward for further evaluation with input from the public, Stakeholder Team, and staff. . Stakeholder Team issues/concerns . Transit issues/concerns . Staff recommendations LEVEL 2 SCREENING EVALUATIONS - REFINED CONCEPTS: The Levell Screening recommended, and Council approved, that a total of 15 options (including four local, seven modified interchange, and four new interchange concepts) be retained for more detailed evaluation in this process of the study. It is important to note that the categories for new and modified interchanges were revised in order to better address design standards. The history of this process and the options are discussed in Technical Memorandum No.7 (TM 7). The table below lists the options that were retained for further evaluation. TABLE 1- OPTIONS EVALUATED IN LEVEL 2 SCREENING MODIFIED NE\V LOCAL ACCESS ACCESS D5 C1 F6 J5 C2V1 12 H4 C2V2 A5 E7 C2V3 13 C2V4 D4V1 D4V2 Total 4 Total 7 Total 4 The options shown in the PowerPoint presentation include location, aerial photography, and refined configuration. The 15 options are also provided as an attachment to this memo. Scoring Criteria: In Exhibit I are the Level 2 screening criteria for the Core Support and Stakeholder Teams' review. The scoring was weighted by consensus of the Core Support Team. Level 2 Screening Results: The summary scoring shown on the next page in Table 2 shows the results of the work accomplished by: 1. Citizen comments collected from the public open house for the project 2. The Stakeholder Team 3. City of Federal Way staff 4. CH2M Hill staff 5. The Core Support Team TABLE 2 - LEVEL 2 SCREEN RESULTS WEIGHT 2003 NO ßlJIl.D DS E7 114 J5 C1 C2 VI C2 V2 MODIFIED CONCEPTS C2 V3 C2 \'4 D4 VI 1)4 V2 AS F6 12 J3 LOCAL CO!,;CEI'TS !,;EW COr"iCEI'TS ~ e::: 0 U rFJ ;;- f- Ü i!'?~!;~ 2,2 i!i'?(4:iII.I..., 2.2 ~.,.~ ~~ 2.4 8U I.g 8D 3.4 liD 3.8 .,~ 3.2 \I.d 3.9 ~Ð1,J 3.1 ~~'}; 3.2 tiä\ 2.7 8U 2.2 ,.j'.8.~ 2 7 ~"'!"'¡ . ,1i2:9J¡ 2.8 - WSDOT STAFF & TRANSIT STAFF SCORES I CITY STAFF & STAKEHOLDER SCORES CORE SUPPORT TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS: The history of scoring options can be found in Exhibit 2. The Core Support Team recommends the following options: Spot Intersection Improvements No Build 2030 H4 and J5 C2Vl D2V4 Local improvements at failing intersections throughout the City of Federal Way study area The current City Comprehensive Plan and surrounding regional plan that includes the widening of the S 320lh Street interchange and the S 312th Street Bridge crossing 1-5. A combined local option for a one-way ring road couplet configuration clockwise around the City Center Core and a local improvement option of a new bridge crossing 1-5 at S 324th Street. Modifications to the S 320th Street interchange gaining access to 1-5 at S 312th Street. Modifications to the S 320th Street interchange with new access at the S 324th Street area. The C2V2 modification to the S 320th Street interchange gaining access to 1-5 at S 31th Street and also near the City of Federal Way Park & Ride near S 324th Street was suggested as a design refinement if the study moves forward to the environmental process. The Core Support Team recommended that the impacts of access at S 31th Street and S 324th Street be evaluated separately, whereas the C2V2 option includes access at both locations. Stakeholder Team Issues/Concerns: Meeting minutes are attached as Exhibit 3, detailing the Stakeholder Team's issues and concerns. The majority of these concerns are related to the access and the crossing of 1-5 at South 31th Street. Stakeholders who wish to present their issues to the LUTC will be present at the meeting. Staff has allocated 10 minutes of this staff report to accommodate these comments. Transit Issues/Concerns: Transit issues and concerns from King County Metro are attached as Exhibit 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends moving the following options forward to Screening Level 3: Spot Intersection Improvements Local improvements at failing intersections throughout the City of Federal Way study area No Build 2030 The CUITent City Comprehensive Plan and suITounding regional plan that includes the widening of the S 320th Street interchange and the S 31th Street Bridge crossing 1-5. H4 and J5 A combined local option for a one-way ring road couplet configuration clockwise around the City Center Core and a local improvement option of a new bridge crossing 1-5 at S 324th Street. C2Vl Modifications to the S 320th Street interchange gaining access to 1-5 at S 312th Street. Modifications to the S 320th Street interchange with new access at the S 324th Street area. D2V4 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Motion to place the above options from Screening Level 2 on the December 7, 2004 City Council Consent Agenda so that they may be forwarded to Screening Level 3 for further analysis. EXHIBIT 1 LEVEL 2 SCREENING CRITERIA Criteria and Description ,Sub Criteria and Measures of Effectiveness Transportation Benefit I. Compatibility with Freeway Operations How does the option impact the overall operations of the transportation system? . II. Impact to freeway safety . Is the option likely to improve/degrade safety? III. Impact on Local Traffic Operations . Does the option improve the operating characteristics of the local system intersections as conveyed in the Purpose and Need? Does the option adversely impact operations . 1. Main Line Travel Demand Impacts on Poorly Operating Segments- as indicated by the traffic volume changes on LOS D, E and F segments of the 1-5 mainline Existing Interchange Ramp Volume Relief- as indicated by: a. The net number of ramps impacted by volume changes as an indicator of ramp terminal operations impacts, b. Volume relief on the So. 320th St. Interchange Ramps. 2. 3. New Interchange Ramp Utilization - as indicated by: a. Interchange volume/capacity ratio, b. Total Interchange volume served. No. of conflict points with the freeway mainline- as indicated by the net change from existing conditions, 1. 2. No. of High Accident Location (HALs) interchange ramps likely to be improved. Impact on Study Intersections - as indicated by: 1. a. Impact on key City Center Intersections #1-6, #8 based on net change in traffic volumes as potential influence on Level of Service (LOS) and the number of intersection s improved. Impact on specific intersections based on Local Options analysis, LOS results and no. of intersections improved. b. 2. Impact on Transit Operations- as indicated by qualitative assessment of increased travel times, re-routing, and/or lack of system connectivity. IV. Impact on Local Street Safety 1. Impact on local study intersections - as indicated by: a. net number of high accident rate corridors with increased or decreased traffic volumes on critical movements, which may be indicative of a change in LOS . Is the option likely to improve/degrade safety on local streets and high accident frequency intersections? V. Connectivity with and Circulation within the City Center . How does the option impact or enhance circulation within the City of Federal Way taking into account functional classification? net number of high accident rate locations with increased or decreased traffic volumes on critical movements, which may be indicative of a change in LOS 1. Subject to qualitative judgments relative to additional east-west connectivity, traffic congestion relief, likely travel time changes, pedestrian access, commercial access, etc. Are arterials allowed to function as arterials? b. VI. Compatibility with Non-Motorized Modes . Does the option support non-motorized facilities while not impacting existing ones? VII. Freight Mobility . Does the option provide increased mobility for freight? 1. Subjective qualitative judgments based on the options ability to accommodate bicycle lanes, pedestrian linkages. Crosswalk locations and lengths are considered 1. Subjective qualitative judgments based on levels of congestion, need to revise freight routes, increased travel times, access restrictions. etc. Criteria and Description Sub Criteria and Measures of Effectiveness VIII. Ability to Meet Design Standards How well does the option adhere to MSHTO and WSDOT design standards? Are design exceptions likely to be accepted? IX. Constructability . How easy and lengthy would it be to implement the option during construction? X. Cost Effectiveness . . Does the option provide relative benefit consistent with the level of investment? 1. Subjective qualitative judgments based on design concept review 1. Subjective qualitative judgments based on the potential overall construction schedule, impacts to traffic operations, ability to sequence and phase project delivery, etc. 1. Ratio of the relative project cost (not actual) based on the major project elements to the amount of traffic removed from the South 320th Street corridor, as indicated by the change in traffic volumes at the SO. 320th St. and 23rd Ave. intersection. Impact to Built Environment XI. Compatibility with Local Plans . Is the option consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan - City Center Element. How well does the option support and advance those plans? 1. Subjective judgment of how well the option promotes conversion to a smaller street grid within the City Center, how well it disperses traffic from S 320th Street to other Streets, and improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections throughout the City Center and the surrounding neighborhoods. XII. Compatibility with State and Regional Plans 1. Are elements of the options included in the King County 2004 Transportation Needs Report, PSRC's Destination 2030, or the WSDOT Highway System Plan Subjective evaluation of how well the concept fits those plans Is the option consistent with county, regional and state plans? XIII. Disruptions and Displacements . How many commercial and residential properties will be displaced and to what level? Would the option disrupt any existing neighborhoods? XIV. Impact on Noise . . How will implementation of an option impact noise levels to residential communities? 1. Subjective qualitative judgment of the likely impact. XV. Impact on Section 4(f) Resources . Would there be any direct impacts on Steel Lake Park, any listed historic buildings, or other section 4(f) resources? 2. 1. Quantitative estimate of the net number of commercial and residential properties adversely affected. Subjective judgment of community disruption. 2. 1. Subjective qualitative judgment of potential noise impacts due to increased/decreased traffic volumes proximate to residential neighborhoods and other sensitive receptors (schools, hospitals, churct¡es, libraries, etc.) Impact to Natural Environments XVI. Impact on Critical areas (steep slopes, wetlands, aquifer recharge, streams, etc.) 1. Subjective qualitative judgment of the likely impact . How will implementation of an option impact known critical resources? XVII. Impact on air quality 1. Correlates with level of congestion as defined by the local intersections . How will implementation of an option likely impact air quality? XVIII. Impact to Threatened or Endangered Species 2. Correlates with freeway congestion levels 1. Subjective qualitative judgment of the likely impact . Is the option likely to negatively impact threatened or endangered species? EXHIBIT 2 Scoring History of Option Selections At the August J{jh 2004 Stakeholder Meeting the following options were scored and ranked as recommended to move forward as preferred options: . JS . 12 . C2Vl . H4 . C2V2 A local improvement option of a new bridge crossing 1-5 at S 324th St. A new interchange at I-5 near S 296th St and connection to SR 509 in the City of Federal Way. A modification to the S 320th St interchange gaining access to I-5 at S 312th St. A one-way ring road couplet configuration clockwise around the city center core area. A modification to the S 320th St interchange gaining access to I-S at S 312th St including ramps and tunnel near the City of Federal Way Park & Ride. At the September 21st 2004 Core Support Team Meeting Criteria and Weighting occurred. At the October s'h/ 2004 Core Support Team Meeting preliminary scoring occurred. At the October 12h/ 2004 Core Support Team Meeting winnowed the following in the preliminary scoring. . D5 . H4 and J5 . E7 and J5 . C2V1 . C2V2 A local comprehensive plan option to remain in the 2030 analysis as required by the comprehensive plan. A combined local option for a one way ring road couplet configuration clockwise around the city center core area and a local improvement option of a new bridge crossing I-5 at S 324th St. A combined local option for a smaller one way couplet configuration counterclockwise around the Commons and a local improvement option of a new bridge crossing I-5 at S 324th St. A modification to the S 320th St interchange gaining access to I-S at S 312th St. A modification to the S 320th St interchange gaining access to I-S at S 312th St including ramps and tunnel near the City of Federal Way Park & Ride near S 324th St. At the October 13th 2004 Stakeholder Meeting the team reviewed the core team selections and provided the following input for options to move forward. . H4 and J5 . E7 and J5 C2Vl A combined.local option for a one-way ring road couplet configuration clockwise around. the city center core area and a local improvement option of a new bridge crossing I-S at S 324th St. A combined local option for a smaller one-way couplet configuration counterclockwise around the Commons and a local improvement option of a new bridge crossing I-5 at S. A modification to the S 320th St interchange gaining access to I-S at S 312th St. REPLACE C2V2 with D2V4 D2V4 is a modification to the S 320th St interchange with new access at the S 324th St area. . EXHIBIT 3 CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY STAKEHOLDER TEAM MEETING #8 Wednesday October 13,2004; I2:00 - 1 :30 PM Amended 10/29/04 Meeting Minutes PRESENTERS: Maryanne Zukowski, P.E (City Staff) ATTENDEES: Kurt Reuter, Dini Duclos, Don Perry, Sandy Paul-Lyle, David Kaplan, Hope Elder, Ron Nowicki, Geoffrey Kelly, Steve Rapp, Eric Stavney, Lisa Cooke-Tinsley (new member addition to be approved on October 19th), Bob Griebenow (member of the Federal Way Chamber of Commerce assisting with Dini Duclos as the Chamber), and Ken Miller, P.E. (Staff). The Stakeholder group represents a wide and full range of interest and expertise. That experience ranges from former council members, ex-City Managers, City staff, Public Safety & Fire Department representatives, Chamber of Commerce President, business owners, private interest groups, and citizens. Please note there are a total of 14 voting members on record for the meeting date of October 13th, 2004. In attendance were 10 voting members representing a majority representation of the team at this meeting. Those not in attendance at the meeting were Cindy Wendland of the Federal Way School District Transportation Division, Fire Chief Allen Church of the Federal Way Fire Department, Officer Andy Hwang of the City of Federal Way Police Department, and Jan Gibson representing Weyerhaeuser interests. Members that were not in attendance will need to contact Maryanne directly for any concerns and issues based on the voting of the majority of the team. Staff member Darlene LeMaster was missed from the meeting as she was assisting the United Way Event for the City. Staff would like to thank Darlene for all of her assistance in organizing lunch and materials for the stakeholder team meeting. Summary: Meeting commenced at 12:00 PM and ended at 1:30 PM. Lunch was served as introductions and housekeeping items were attended to, and those housekeeping items were: . New member addition to the stakeholder team that was sent to the City Council for approval on October 19th, 2004. . E-mail request from Chuck O'Donnell that was sent out to all team members for the addition of an options to the current list of options currently endorsed by the group and the resignation of Chuck O'Donnell from the team. . TM9 revisions. . Weighting of the three scoring sections of Transportation Benefit, Impacts to the Built Environment, and Impacts to the Natural Environment. . Core support team meeting update/summary from their meeting on October 12th, 2004. Update of scoring of the 15 options. Lisa Cooke-Tinsley was introduced to the team as the first order of business. Maryanne discussed the proposed additional option from Chuck O'Donnell as presented in his e-mail dated 10/10/04 and discussed with the group that the LUTC already has made a decision that no additional options are to be brought forward as the budget will not allow additional funds to the project, the timing of the request would also compromise the current contract work in progress, and the scope of the request is far out of the range of the specific scope of this current study. Although Mr. O'Donnell has contributed a lot of time, commitment, and thought to his proposal the request is out of the range of this groups scope. Maryanne asked the group for any concerns or additional comments on this proposal. The consensus of the group was not to move forward on this request. TM9 corrections and addendums were handed out to the group. A few of the team members voiced strongly their dissatisfaction with this process and the change out of materials. Which made this more cumbersome is that the copies collated by Kinko's were mismatched and out of sort. It was explained to the group that Maryanne has collected all the changes over the past month and removed all unneeded change out of materials so there would be one change out. Since these materials would be cumbersome to mail and also confusing to change out, Maryanne instead wanted to walk through the change out of materials in their books. It was voiced very much from the team members their dissatisfaction of this time to proceed with this iteration and was also concerned that they had already read these materials and now they have to digest more infonnation after they have removed the originals. Maryanne stated that anyone who needs their book changed out may leave it with her or come to city hall and we can change out the book pages together. There was voiced a concern that the core team that also changes out their materials are paid for their time, and the stakeholders are volunteers to this project and have jobs. Maryanne asked for suggestions from the group to better assist in this process for the change out of material addition and corrections to TM9 and future TM' s. It was stated to the team that staff is currently working with the consultant on a better QAlQC program. Maryanne stated that all additional materials to TM9 would be additions and not change out of materials. The Hierarchy (percentage assignment sheets to the scoring criteria) sheet was handed out and some members are missing this sheet, as Kinko's did not copy it for all sets. The weighting of the three scoring sections of Transportation Benefit, Impacts to the Built Environment, and Impacts to the Natural Environment was explained as being detennined by the Support Core Team. The team had questions on how this was detennined and was explained by staff that this was through negotiations with the team. City Staff presented: Transportation Benefit Impacts to the Built Environment Impacts to the Natural Environment WSDOT/FHW AlCH2Mhill Transportation Benefit Impacts to the Built Environment Impacts to the Natural Environment Through negation the final approval went out as: Transportation Benefit Impacts to the Built Environment Impacts to the Natural Environment (40%) (35%) (25%) (70%) (15%) (15%) (60%) (25%) (15%) Staff conceded to the reduction since there are many more sets and subsets of criteria under the transportation benefit section that reduced the percentages in those categories. The other percentages had similar negations and limited consensus to reach agreement. Maryanne presented an update from the core support team on October 12th, 2004. The update of scoring of the 15 options and the reduction of options to a contract amount of 3. The final selections did not reach a consensus from the core team and some of those issues were brought to the stakeholder team for their input. The summary score sheets were handed out. It was presented to the team that the consultant ranked some sections based measurable data presented in TM9. Any subjective scoring ranking was not completed by CH2Mhil1. It also was presented that the W8DOT/FHW A teams only scored a limited amount of sections based on their expertise and deferred a majority of scoring to the City. Transit scored only one section and City staff also scored those sections. The City submitted the majority of the scores. The city staff incorporated the stakeholder team scores into their scoring by interpolating their scores into the 1 - 5 method. In some cases the stakeholder scores did not match the city staff recommendation, those scores were negotiated in average. In a few cases some of the scores changed based on other additional knowledge outside of the stakeholder team. Maryanne stated that at any time the stakeholder team can contact her and those scores would be presented as scored by the stakeholders, staffteams, and Maryanne. So. where are we now? The stakeholder team previously scored 15 options and after the scoring was compiled, five (5) options stood out as potential solutions recoment at the next level of screening. Ranked from highest to lowest, the following alternatives remain viable: . J5 (Bridge crossing 15 at 8 324th 8t.) . 12 (New interchange at 15 and S. 296th St connecting to SR 509) . C2Vl (Modification of the interchange at 8 320th 8t. that includes new ramp locations at 8 31th) . H4 (Large one way couplet that uses S 316th St. and S 324th St. . C2V2 (Similar to the C2Vl option with addition of a tunnel ramp sections at 8 324th 8t. Discussion: (1) S 312th 8t Issues and concerns: Maryanne presented the local options recommended to move forward tentatively by the core team. The core team endorses those recommendations. Discussion of some of the decisions made from the core team meeting followed. The local option D5 which is a bridge crossing 15 at S. 3 12th St was represented as a local option to measure how effective the solution is to the traffic impacts at 8. 320th 8t and 15 and is a currently adopted comprehensive plan element. Maryanne stated that this element would go back in the 2030 traffic model as an element of no build based upon the scoring of the options and traffic elements it provides. No further analysis was needed trom the data presented and it is an adopted comprehensive plan element. This direction was advised by the WSDOT and FHW A as this is a comprehensive plan element and belongs in the planned projects of the comprehensive plan that is currently adopted. The team members voiced their oppositions to considering the bridge crossing 15 at S. 312th 8t option D5 a "done deal". Staff explained to the team that removing the S 312th St option D5 is not a condition that can be considered as part of this traffic study. It is a requirement of the study to prove all local options have been evaluated and do not meet the purpose and need before we evaluate a modified interchange option and a new interchange (in that order). Staff explained that it is not within the scope of this project to remove a comprehensive plan element that has been formally adopted by city council. It is required as part of this study to keep it in the no build 2030 model and it was evaluated separately to its efficiency against other options. Maryanne advised the team that the members who have an issue with this and a concern could voice their concems and she would report this to the LUTC at the update of the project status planned for November 15th, 2004. Maryanne took a pole of the room on those who are strongly opposed to a bridge crossing 15 at S 312th St. 10 of the 12 members voiced that they are strongly opposed. Maryanne stated that they should write up that opposition so that she may present those concerns. (2) Option H4 (ONE-WAY ring road utilizing S 316111 S1. and S. 324111 S1.) Maryanne presented outstanding issues from the core team that needed a resolution. The current contract provides for (3) options to move forward for further analysis, where as H4 has been a controversial option among many reviewers and scoring parties. Maryanne polled the voting members on this option H4 moving forward for further analysis. 6 of the 10 voting members approve of this option moving forward. Option H4 as represented in TM7 was shown that it could be analyzed clock wise and counter clockwise. Previously stakeholder members wanted to see this option in the reverse as presented in the drawings as the clockwise travel pattern. Maryanne stated that the current clockwise travel pattern is all right turns. In the counterclockwise travel pattern as typically recognized by people is all lefts. Left turns typically take more green time out of a signal cycle. The staff traffic engineers' preference is clockwise. Mark SaWyer of the WSDOT mentioned that clockwise benefits the internal circle and the reverse travel pattern benefits the external traffic. The question was raised by the team as to how they would know what the traffic does if it is not analyzed in both directions. Staff responded that if one direction is chosen now and if it moves forward as a preferred alternative, that alternative most likely would be analyzed in many different variations. Maryanne took a poll of the voting members and 6 ofthe 10 members chose clockwise. (3) Options C2Vl and C2V2 issues and concerns: Maryanne presented information regarding the scoring of the modified interchange scoring were as C2Vl (Modification of the interchange at S 320th S1. that includes new ramp locations at S 312lh) and C2V2 (Similar to the C2Vl option with addition of a tunnel ramp sections at S 324111 S1. Were within the (5) options ranked the highest by the stakeholder team and were both scored number #1 out of all of the scoring at 3.1 in the combined scores. The stakeholders voiced their concern and opposition over the "new interchange" at S 3 12th S1. and felt that D2V2 with a location at S 324111 St and with a score of 3.0 should replace the C2V2 option to be analyzed. Staff commented on previous concern by Weyerhaeuser connecting traffic links in the Corporate Head Quarters Facility. Team members commented that Jan was not in attendance at this meeting to incorporate any concerns. (4) New Interchanges: Team members questioned what happened to the 12 option as previously chosen by the stakeholder team. Staff explained the no build score was 2.7 and all but one option in the new interchange section scored below the no build. The J5 option for a new interchange at S 336111 S1. scored 1/10 of a decimal place over no build with a score of 2.8. Staff further explained that in the diagrams for 12 within TM9 it shows that this option for a new interchange at 15 and S 2961h St connecting to SR 509 showed a substantial amount of traffic benefit reduction at 15 and S 272nd St with 0 to 10 vehicle reduction per hour at the interchange of S 320th St and various ramp locations. Ken Miller asked to repeat the purpose and need statement for this project and it is copied below. In order to enhance access to and circulation within the City Center, the City of Federal Way seeks to improve safety and reduce congestion on the transportation network. Staff further explained that the objective in this study is to first prove that local improvements will not meet the needs, then evaluation of modified improvements will not meet the need, then we can move on to a new interchange location alternative. The interchanges scored lower than no build (do nothing) and one did .only score 1/10th of a decimal place. In all cases the new interchanges did not score as well as the local options and the modified interchange locations. No recommendation was made move a new interchange forward. There was one question in the meeting relating to how the scores are tabulated. Staff responded as the WSDOT column and the City column are shown in the spreadsheets and they are cumulative scores, where WSDOT did not score sections they assumed the City scores. The following comments were written up from the meeting to include in the meeting minutes documenting the concerns ofthe S 312th St Comprehensive Plan Element that cannot be eliminated from this project study as an adopted Comprehensive Plan Element. The following documentation of concerns will be provided to the LUTC on November the 15th. From: "h.david kaplan" <hdk1934@hotmail.com> To: Marvanne.Zukowski(â)dtvoffederalwav.com, hdk1934(â)hotmail.com Subject: CCAS Stakeholders and S. 312 Street Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:55:21 -0700 Dear Maryanne: As per our discussion at this aftemoon's meeting, I would like you to pass on the following comments when you next report to the lUTe. Many of the options we have been reviewing indude either a bridge or an interchange at 1-5 and S. 312th Street. I would like to go on record to express my opposition to a bridge crossing 1-5 at S. 312th Street or a new freeway interchange at S. 312th Street and 1-5. (I also am opposed to the S. 312th Street Bridge in the Oty's Camp Plan. I will address that during the next phase of Comp Plan amendments.) I have the following reasons for my opposition: 1. It would be necessary to widen S. 312th Street through Steel Lake Park to at least three lanes, if not four. Either modification would negatively impact both the Massengale Ball field on the north side of S. 312th Street and 28th Avenue South and the Skate Park at the South side of S. 312th Street and 28th Avenue South. 2. The heavy traffic resulting from either of the options would negatively impact pedestrian safety at the crossing between the two parts of the parle 3. There are wetlands at 28th Avenue South and S. 312th, as well at the westem boundary of the park on the South side of S. 312th Street. Buffer requirements would made roadway construction diffiaJlt, if not impossible to do at a reasonable cost. 4. We now have a pair of two lane streets at the intersection of 28th Avenue and 312th. The added traffic because of the 1-5 exit at 312th, plus HaV traffic heading north from 317th on 28th Avenue South, would negatively change the character of the neighborhood. 5. The tremendous cost of land acquisition and construction may not warrant the value received in terms of traffic advantages and Quality of life. Thank you for passing on these thoughts to LUTe. H. David Kaplan "Dini Duclos" <dinid(ã)multi-servicecenter.com> 10/14/20045:28:41 PM Maryann, Please add me as supporting David's expressed concerns. He has stated my objections perfectly. Dini Duclos Stavney, Eric" <EStavney@sea.devry.edu> 10/15/2004 9:25:38 AM Maryanne, I hate to be an "add me too" person, but I found David's list of reasons for why our City should hesitate to build the 312th bridge to be nicely stated. He does not fly off the handle, but instead offers strong, rational, and I think compelling reasons for us to go on record as opposing this concept. Eric Stavney 3600 S. 344th way Federal Way, WA 98001 estavney@sea.devry.edu (2S3) 943-3119 Sandy Paul-Lyle <spaul@cLpacific.wa.us> 10/15/20048:36:45 AM Per our discussion at the October 13, 2004, City Center Access Stakeholders meeting, I want to be induded in the voice opposing any crossing of 1-5 at south 312111 Street. When that option was placed in the Comprehensive Plan. it was merely a vision. Our unscientific work as stakeholders has discovered how unrealistic such a crossing would be in reality. For South 312111 Street to be effective as an arterial street, it would need to be widened to 3 or 4 lanes, preferably 4. Where would those lanes go? Through the wonderful new skate park? Through Steel Lake Park and the ballfields? An overcrossing would have to begin at 23rd Avenue South and would be very disruptive to homes and the park for all of eternity. Such a plan is impractical and expensive, more expensive than other options in my opinion. In order to preserve safety for pedestrians crossing between the parks, a pedestrian overpass or tunnel would have to be built. Steel Lake Park is a jewel in Federal Way and must be preserved, not compromised, for the greater good of all Federal Way Citizens. I do support a change in the Comprehensive Plan vision to remove the overcrossing at South 312111 Street. I think I need to be on the Planning Commission! (Oh, my god! Did I say that? 19 months. I cannot do another thing for 19 more months! Many of my current obligations will end in 19 months. Did I say I was counting?) Sandy Paul-Lyle City Clerk/Personnel Manager City of Padfic 100 3rd Avenue SE Padfic WA 98047 253.929.1105 253.939.6026 (fax) soaul(â)ci.oacific.wa.us Amendment 10/29/04 »> "Geoffrey C. Kelly" <celldumred@foxinternetnet> 10/28/20044:22:22 AM »> October 28, 2004 Hello Maryanne and others who may read these words. Thank you and the City of Federal Way for permitting me to serve on the stakeholder's committee for our ongoing traffic study, and additionally suggesting attendance at core meetings and comments for related matters. This communication is submitted in support of those deliberations The "issue" of 312 was originally dispatched by Hope Elder who early in our meetings suggested that earlier Councils had been told 312 would not become part of the freeway system. These were not Mrs. Elder's exact words, but my interpretation of them. Essentially, Hot places would get cold first! So is the vision (of the 20 year comprehensive plan) to become reality? And should we really be spending a lot of money on traffic studies assuming a "what if' was an "is"? Options for 312: (A) No nothing, (B) Bridge over 1-5 connecting East and West. (C) Freeway access essentially creating a 312th exit and access point. (0) [unlikely] Possible 1-5 access from 312 or city core access from freeway. Resulting in: (a) neighborhood peace and an unimpacted Steel lake Park (SlP). (b) Significant increase in local traffic (1000 cars an hour amounts to sixteen movements a minute - there goes the neighborhood!) (c) Huge impact, requiring extensive mitigation. (d) Somewhat less impact. but extensive mitigation still required. Mitigation?: (1) Tunnel (high water table prevents). (2) Flyways (Bridges) Noise, unsightly, dangerous, (3) More lanes (kills the park). Summarÿ: What mitigation! So, yes, Maryanne, this question should be addressed now rather than later. Please permit the following mini-rant Please refer to TM 6 graphic F-4, Also the eliminated options text in TM-7 (Draft) pg 27. Please permit me the opportunity to address the reasons for elimination of my proposed ring road. My position is that there were and remain huge differences in my original proposal that the consultant's work does not acknowledge and that as a result the wrong local options were carried forward to second level screening. Before beginning, a short tutorial as to where I'm coming from. In my opinion, this isn't rocket science. If you have a street that is packed the only option is to provide alternative options - essentially, divide - the clients will use options most efficiently. Whether or not clients are city core bound visitors or commuters just passing through, both parties would be best served by a road system that permits smoother flows and in this case that means the only way to take traffic off 320 is to put it somewhere else. The focus of the city core user are the shopping options in and around 320th whereas the commuter user's focus is a freeway on or off ramp and the quickest way to transit the areas in which they have no interest For many of the West of Pacific Highway South (PHS) citizens my ring road suggestion of March 3, 2004 was the local oDtion that deserved serious study and in my opinion today, still deserves serious study - especially in light of the options that did move forward. My suggestion was the ring road and the only missing link was the 14th avenue connector (which was later learned to be a 20 year growth plan freature similar to 312th). 1-5 egress at 312 would be nice, and 1-5 access at 324 would have been nice but both not entirely necessary. So lets pick apart what TM 7 (Pg 27) said about my eliminated option: (1) Variations of the option are carried forward, therefore this option was deemed duplicative. [Yes, the nonessential 312 and 324 options to the freeway are carried forward, but no option carried forward correctly would have accomplished the task of reducing traffic in the 320th area. One option made 320 a one way street and the option that suggested 317 as a one way street ignores the fact that 312 is a heavy carrier of east and west bound western city citizens bound for the freeway ramp on 320th. A key element of my proposal is the intent to move westem residents as quickly as possible from the intersection of PHS and 312 to a freeway on/off ramp and Q[ the city center. A one way loop at 317 is of marginal help.] (2) Results in partial interchanges. which is against WSDOT and FHWA policy. (Ture, but interchanges are not local options] (3) One way couplet is presented elsewhere. (Discussed in 1 above.] (4) Does not meet minimum interchange spacing requirements. (Similar to 2 above] (5) Impacts to transit system stops, operation and circulation. (Well EXCUSE ME! Should the transit "tail" wag the city "Dog"? Actually, I believe the F-4 proposal has better transit impact than the 317 proposal carried forward! But the thought that transit's 3000 daily commuters (1200 vehides at the new transit center abuilding and 900 at the existing King County location plus walk ons) should adversely impact the 30,000 who leave town daily - well it leaves a bitter taste. I will acknowledge my numbers are soft and that there are serious concerns. But it does seem to me that wider streets going in the same direction can only benefit transit. Faster flow with fewer "deadman" lanes and room to pass slower busses offsetting pedestrian difficulty in accessing pickup points if they are on the wrong side of the street] So in summary, I'm not very happy about the treatment afforded my F-4 suggestion. And if it comes to pass the 312 does become a major through way, suspected is that my disappointment level will only raise as it is questioned if my proposals would have mitigated somewhat the impact to SlP and the neighborhood. (Remember that my original proposal was for only a southbound 1-5 offramp under SlP exiting the west side.] In a slightly related matters, I would like to express my disappointment that the freeway access proposals from Dash Point Road and 336th streets did so poorly. It is presumed the Dash Point 1-5 traffic accesses 1-5 via 272 but it is also presumed some of that traffic ends up traveling through the city center and some may actually drive to 272 to access city core businesses at the 1-5/320th intersection rather than driving PHS to the city core. As for 336 an intersection here would remove some 320 traffic and potentially quite a bit if the new church's impact were rolled into the equations. So MaryAnne, in closing I share the frustration of the stakeholder who sees little benefit from these studies when the focus shifts away from keeping commuters out of town to taking somewhat better care of the traffic already there. And the cost of the C2 proposal will boggle the mind. If Auburn can't get a decent exit to its mall from highway 18, just where will our broke State find the money to do anything for us? And I really do resent my essentially local option being "canned" because of the 1-5 interface issues and substitute proposals that do not address the core problem - getting through traffic out of the immediate city core so citizens can actually use 320 as a local street for shopping. Thank you for your attention. Geoffrey Kelly [And a reminder that I do not use 1-5 for commuting, living and working in Federal Way] (i) EXHIBIT 4 KING COUNTY METRO AND TRANSIT ISSUES King County Department of Transportation Metro Transit King Street.Center 201 $Ol..1th Jackson Street Mail Stop KSC-TR-0422 Seattle, W A 98104-3856- November 9, 2004 Maryalme Zukowski, Project Manager Federal Way City Center Access Study City of Federal Way, Public Works Department P. O. Box 9718 Federal Way, W A 98063-9718 Dear Ms. Zukowski: Following the last meeting of the Federal Way City Center Access Study on October 19,2004, staff from Sound Transit, King County Metro Transit, and Pierce Transit met to discuss the implications of the alternatives selected for Level 3 evaluation. Our discussions focused on Alternative H4, which would create a one-way loop operating eastbound on South 316th Street., southbound on 23rd Avenue South, westbound on South 324th Street, and northbound on 11th Place South. We would like to offer the following comments as part of the support team staff report: Essential Transit-Supportive Chan£!'es to Alternative H4 Throughout, our analysis assumes that two modifications to Alternative H4 will be adopted. Without these adjustments, transit and park-and-ride garage operations would be dramatically affected in negative ways. Maryanne Zukowski November 9, 2004 Page Two . 21st Avenue South between South 316th and South 324th streets needs to be constructed so that transit routes and park-and-ride garage traffic will be able to access the transit center; and . The existing traffic signal on S. 320th St at 25th Avenue South needs to be retained. When the new transit center opens in 2006, King County Metro Transit plans to operate both Route 174 and Route 194 between the new transit center and the existing Federal Way park-and-ride Jot. These two routes will provide a continued midday transit connection for commuters who park at the Federal Way park-and-ride lot. The potential elimination of this signal wouJdjeopardize this planned midday connection by forcing both of these routes to operate a time-consuming routing around Sea- Tac Mall as the only way to return to the transit center. General Comments about Alternative H4 1. The one-way couplet would require a number of King County Metro Transit and Pierce Transit routes to operate on circuitous routing to and ftom the Federal Way Trdnsit Center now under construction at 23rd Avenue South and South 317th Street. Eight routes would be potentially affected, including routes 174. 181, 182, 187, 194,402,500, and 501. In the case of Metro service, the longer running times would require at least seven additional buses just to maintain current service levels on five different routes. Their estimated annual cost would be approximately 33,500 service hours or about $2.7 million annually. Given the CUITent and projected constraints on Metro resources, this incremental operating cost would have to come out of existing service hours in the Federal Way area or elsewhere in South King County (that is, existing service would have to be decreased by this amount ifno additional resources were available to cover the increased operating costs). 2. The one-way couplet would adversely affect access into and out ohhe park-and-ride garage under construction as part of Sound Transit's Federal Way Community Connections project, since South 316th Street and 23rd Avenue South would become one-way arterials. South 316th Street will provide the main access to and from the garage. The effects of diverting traffic to and from the garage during peak hours should be included in the Level 3 evaluation of Alternative H4, 3. One-way transit operation on large superblocks would discourage use of transit in the Federal Way City Center area in a variety of ways: . Walk distances to between bus stops and several major activity centers would increase. The Alternative H4 couplet would worsen the transit access to Sea- Tac Mall by requiring some routes to operate on different streets; Maryanne Zukowski November 9, 2004 Page Three . Bus travel times through the Center City area would increase substantially; and . Couplet operation also will make bus service more complex to understand. For example, in some instances. a bus route would serve the same bus stop when going into and when leaving Federal Way. When this happens, customers tend to get confused and boa~d buses going in the opposite direction from their desire. Ultimately, confusing and circuitous route design leads to decreased transit ridership, and is counter to the city's express desire to reduce aulo-dependence: in the city center area. 4. The impact of one-way operation on 23rd Avenue South on the planned signal at 23rd Avenue South and South 317th Street should be evaluated. The main transit access for both regional and local buses will be through this intersection. A lengthened green phase favoring southbound traffic movements on 23rd Avenue South could potentially delay buses in and out of the transit center and lengthen transit operating times. 5. The construction of the park-and-ride garage does not relieve the need for the exis6ng Federal Way park-and-ride to continue operations and provide parking capacity into the future. The planning for the park-and-ride garage, including extensive discussions among staff of the City of Federal Way, the three transit agencies, and the Washington State Department of Transportation, assumed continued operation of the Fcderal Way park-and- ride, Decisions on long-range changes to transportation facilities serving the city center need to take into account the ramifications for future operation of both park-and-ride facilities. Conclusions In summary, our concerns with Alternative H4 include circuitous foutings, higher operating costs to provide the same levels of service, hard-to-understand foutings for transit customers, and loss of two-way access to potential destinations in the Federal Way city center. This alternative could also potentially compromise access to both park-and-ride facilities in the city center area. King County Metro Transit staffhas prepared maps of the individual transit routings under the 2006 transit center operating plan and under the H4 couplet alternative, and is prepared to discuss specifics about transit operations with members of the CH2M Hill consultant team. A set of these maps is attached to this letter. Sound Transit, King County Metro Transit and Pierce Transit share a common interest and commitment in providing effective. high quality transit service that supports the transportation and economic development objectives of the City of Federal Way by making transit a more Maryanne Zukowski November 9, 2004 Page Four attractive alternative to single-occupant vehicle use in the city center area. We look forward to continued participation and collaboration on the support team of the Federal Way City Center Access, Study to identify potential alternatives that address these objectives. Sincerely, ~~~ Mike Bergman Project Manager, Operations Department UÂ~ Victor Obeso Supervisor, Service Planning King County Metro ~ Senior Operations Planning Manager Pierce Transit Attachments l.1 }:"~I ,-. . " .. - '..400" c""A Federal Way LEGEND ÐII8BG - St...llo.V.1'!Ð8CT - __-.1UII1IaENT' -- .--.. -..ÆD X, "- - II "".',.-- . ;-'\ . ~¿. . 4Wr ~ JÍ'~~, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY Figure D5.A 1M-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING Concept Environmental Factors CH2MHILL J!IO J!» + ... ".oIOOn t~Way CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING OPTION H4: L316 wa, L324 EB COUPLET + 100 - 'III Figure H4.A Concept Design Features CH2MHILL - x. 1. . 100C11'T ~ "'~~ Feder. Wlly JID ."" '.. ,. . ,aaa IT TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING x. IAHEI Figure H4.A Concept Environmental Factors ~~ I I ! ~Way .. .... '... h '..1I1I1O1"T TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING Figure E7.A Concept Design Features ~ !I-.HILL 1MMCT8 TO NATU RAL AND BUILT aNVlRONIIINT8 x. '8 -'000"" TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING Figure E7.A Concept Environmental Factors OPTION E7: L32O WB. L324 EB COUPLET +. . ~ ?J 8IHIIJ. r.ðWay I!I!I - '.. - ATTRIIIUTE8 New 1-5 CI'OI8W1g at S. 32~1h Street proIIidee additional 88It-wœt connecIMty. J5 8CREI!NINO ClUTEIUA x. TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING Figure J5.A Concept Design Features + OPTION J5: L312 EW. L324 EW L32 NS. L13 NS --~ Fed8nII Way .. - '.. - ," . 100111'T ~ 'MHILL r~- ! ,.7,.'¿., ,oj, J5 ... '... '.!GO ~ CITY OF FEDERAl WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING x. ".'OOOFT C~I-IILL C1 .. .. PI CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING Figure C1.A Concept Design Features +- .- '-..00" 1-- ~ """'~ Federal Way 200 ... f!1O CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING Figure C1.B Concept Environmental Factors +* OPTION C1: M320 SPUI x. ".400 I'T CH2MHILl. "" "" ". 400 FT CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING ? . . Figure C2 V1.B1 Concept Environmental Factors + I . " 'j X> "'4OOFT Figure C2 V1.B2 Concept Environmental Factors +- CH2MHILL on..~ Federal Way !.... 2\11 ... 100 ".<400" OPTION C2V1: N312 M320 DIAMNDCD + BRAIDED RAMP DETAIL PU~-MILL ~------ .'< ,':" . '....Ç}..' C2 ,. , ' ~>a, V2 " f.t No displacements SHEET1 ~" ~ ,..~ 0 r > ~ ' Noi&e Impacts on condos near 3121h SI. ramps' ',," Traftlc noise may Increase In St~el Lake Park 'ÞI9IT1Al. WETlAND 1 ~ýJ;"m tie arilieal 111M .,...-1>0 .1=,41'A CT"$ . ,\ o~ . . r 0 'f '" IMPACTS TO NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENTS : optfJ;~ ;0;'>," t -¡ , , ( '.'\, . ~~ >:" . " .. , t' : !' "', . l' ¡. ..- . -~-~ J 'It /.. I' f;, I SeaTac t' Mall \ èi5 .c 'õ ¡'¡('oj 1M .. 0 )., rn ,I,; , ~ ,., ",... federal Way "'" ... .... ,. . 400 FT TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING x> èi5 £; ¡;;¡ M ¡en , Future Transit ; 'Center , I II, . ~, 0) " /" ox. "'. .. 1; ." '. c' ¡ 1. ') ..r.. 0'. r ~ ~~~. :b ~ Figure C2 V2.B1 Concept Environmental Factors OPTION C2 V2: N312 N322 M320 DIAMND CD + SHEET 1 of 2 CH2MHILL ':.-~ j' ,.', -, ~ . -'. Federal Way '.i' , èi5 ~ ,.... ("1 (/J ..- f-[ WI W i NOISE I 1 IMPACTS en I " I . lli k.~_-~. . ,-.-< "-l" -C,.;., .' ".. c cnk~1 :--,j~~-T J-' ill; ~-'I [ J. Z'~ I.' -"--'-_._-~ .~ ,. .- :J . "'-- ---- ".. -; J..- 1 > ~ -"" -, ~~""--. I. ' -'-,"),':_,-,:":",,:,,,,'-':_' ".:.-~ 'j-" 1~, -.;.... ',' ',' " ~. -- - t'O"r""lIA/..""ÞAAr: 0 """'" " - - "'~'pr~. - ',- ;,- -i W£TZ.A~ L- 'f' " ," ,~ '.. , - ;:¡¡ , ,',' --, ' 28th Ave- S êiJ .c 3 (") (j) 'r- ';' .-1' - -, (f¡ .c: ~ 0 M (/J ~\\,\3rj \'I.Ò, .' / " LEGEND SCALE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY Figure C2 V2,B2 Concept Environmental Factors DISmG J"~"CV ""CIFe1 NYLM CO"" I'I.M ULML" ,,"oe"5(O """.EO ""';" c< lMfS c -- ~ ,', 400 FT TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING IMPACTS TO NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENTS C2 V2 Ire ¡j",.'ICI-c~'f'nls SHEET 2 1"1",,-:,,,,:,1 "",dos ,\C;" 312;h 51 ramps Irii"l( nc"" rriJ', In";,;",, In SI""I Lake Pa1-: e:r¡{--IJTIA/ \<JlHA""P ~ f!.vHC/é'. ~~""""",.;'!..cts :r""p<'1CïS \c Ii"..", Iql.K:' nn T&F species ", "','V"'""",,',"""'"" --- - OPTIO,N, C",2 V2-"-'12 N322".120 DIAMN¿ cJ 4 , SHEET20f:~ I . CH2MHILl '<'ì " , ~¥ì' " , '. , "\.- .. , ~ ,....~ ,;J 1'-;i' , ¡ " I I ( - t .,- , " ,\, , !Þ.r ~H '.' g'" ~ \ " . ~ SeaTae Mall Future Transit ',Center . .- Uš 8 ~ .in \ , 23rd Ave. S '" -¡ I' : ~ r; ~~.1 l 23rd Ave. S ,:1 " f ....1 ^ ¡ y of' , ~ , ,. .., " . . , . - , . . , :i r , , , .. , , : ~ . 'I . ;> . ¿ ;. VII ".,; : '5 ,.,..., .~ 'f'" ' . en r -\; ~; '. ."\' ti5 '~ , ... (f)" qj , ,; ,~ ) '\. ,- .' , ;:<'-. ( t '7 \. . '1' " , .if " '" ': )' " ": . 1 1 ,.: \ , "- ,'" '.. ) "'; , "" >,' . ;. --" . , I f ..'\ .' ~ i' ~ ". ' (\ ! CO') . .en \, ,- /, " \ 1? y ì j .. j '.. . ~ ¡ . .> " '" i '~U;;; , ",t.... , " .,~ : ..,.."':1' . ¡,t:;':,J~,/; iI'f' " , "¿j: ~ - ,.. ,'(r:, ..'( , J. ,), .} , ,:- :, '¡. "~ Federal W?oy LEGEND EXIST"'" "'.. HOV POC.IECT 2O-YfAR OOIIP, P\NI E\£WE>jT -..œ£c 0900\IED "_OF""'" ,. 0 400FT TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING SCAlE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY OPTION C2 V2: N312 N322 M320 DIAMND CO . BRAIDED RAMP DETAIL CH2MHILL ... ..., oem x. " C2 DETAil". V2" . ',-' .) , .If''' l!Ì'í" ) ::¡~r_, ".( I ". ,' ;II' , ~, " .. j,,~ " v' '", "'" ,,¡~), "'I" "). ~~,t,,' ",J. , ,; "r:', .I ,.~' ,J" ,'.. )"'~ - ' po ¡ # ",-Y..I_,' '.i!">, . .' . ,~, ; " ' .J."'J"" . .",....,q.....:..Æ 1-',l . I~ <~ ' t, ". ',',::" '. ,', '.,","'i"-.j>/'. 'J '" : ,-,. r, . ",,(' :(, ' ~,..... . . .~/ , . .~, . " w',. to ',' , ¡.¡; , ';;"'Y~ ~ ::"'" t.., 't:. ,. ~ ,r ~ '>:J, . ,< , ;;, , t- ' -', ~ , ,'. ,,' ,> 'j : '} . ' ~ ¡ . ... "r . ,.,.' ," , t " ~ ;::<; , , '.~ ',.. ~~'!fj! S ~ '" "', ' "~1" ).::rJ/ .~ . ,; ¡ . t., ~.;. ,'~ \ '.. """;~ "r..., "",j?,,' vet --.,.f:¡- ,~ ,,' ::",t~ . .'¡¡ {. .., . .'.~ t \ ," t.. ,~, :t . .. . ,it., ' J } :>'" '1-' ' .' '( '.. ,'", \" " ",,"'~+, :,"', .,¡, I "", .~.;. \\~ 3.1,1 ,I, " .' , ,.' f ," .", ;,¡'.~~ ""'f ,., ~~,. ' 't- '.. .... ' , h ' T ,. ~.." ~ , :1,'" - ,....,. . '. 'ff ... "'~""'\' ,;,,:¡. ',;;:"r).- . .h.' ,,~~Z;-~. "", "'i'ì'.: :,"':;, ~~;~ ~,ý \. . y , . . IMPACTS TO NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENTS NodisplacemenlS ,~ . : ,j '.' . . ." " \ \ ' . ~"i ' ,,) y¡ 1 . ,t.)~ . ¡,ft: ' .? ìg '¡(f f'r"' 1 " f ~ :{ .1 I C2 " J'" " ., V3 r. ,', SHEET 1.', ,1 : ," \ ncrease In Steel Lake Park ; or; . . .. , To""'" ~y' Þ ! g""Æ;I/ """ , , ': ~NT1AL ,~AI IM,~cr$ I ,,~ '. .~.... , ""'-, - ¡ 1. / ',' 1 tie 8 ilieel_.wo '" " 't'. ';, "" ' " ',', ", c>" " cis on T&E Species " " . . ... 1. , "'.., , ' No ..... .... , " - " , T&E;-oncI~ '.~""- ~ .7'n.~~. - .. ,.'~~, "~"', '.. -IIIi, '." '. :~.~v ~;l,.~..;>" """"-"" "'.... " ., J, . .. .~'":.:" . ", , :," -" ',..' '~"~... ... ,J:",y,"" " . : ~' 'tÌ"-,~ tf "" ~~. . , t ' .~-r).,.. '.. "- -", ' "", .~ , T- "", "';'tõ;, ""'^""-, , "'f'," .,',t'., ", ',J" --"/,"",w"-",,, '.,.", "" "'",', , ' . ',.. , . -...... , ""',. ' , , --;'-':-.. ", '<, ~ '-~"'-, , "", 0,. ",.. .' '~~', ',~, ,,; 0 ,.". ,.... ,- ~. ;" : Noise iß1)8cts on condos near 312th 51. ramps J ' . '-,~ "', .. ..- ? It, "Park & ,~Idø ~ ,....~ Federal Way "" ... ~ t'. 400 FT TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING .. ,; i~' ; SeaTac (" Mall I: r I \: , i Future If Transit I ; \Center I J, , 23rd Ave, S.,.; { [Y' ...' j: ¡ (/) " ", , ' I'. ;,~,1..,rv.1""-":"'§"""""':"", :":,';'\" """"..""1' N".," .1."" ,1. 'i,;l,.. ¡,-' f' M" ; R"móv~ Signál' ! )""r ., " '~,"',.,'~, "'ff.",,'C. , 'Any, . ,,"(OPt,l~ma"\_, .', ~'.""-:,,j .; ~ »,J:i: 'r ' ,J ' ¡ r ~: . f (' , "",,;r;. "'..' ,;,~"A: ", '(/)1', ""J' 25th.h~: S, , " ", "', ' - 1"'£',' ~ , ' t ,~), ". :' :(:::' ',,' -, . .. " Þ¡o(")', ,~. , 'i ','- ..'" , I ~,'" ~ . . . ' ,.', ' ,! '" ujL'" '~,," ~ 't "..I'\>."h,., "":,' , "~'~S>""'" \.~ ' J , . ',0 ;i-' """.. -, , I ..; ,., I,~ 'Í .j~ ;;,\ ' J " , ¡ ~ ~""',~, ) ... ", ,,1" ,~ "os; , 'Ì.¡:' " : " '!¡.~", \0 U~,~4l'-4l. ' ":'~' ~, Figure C2 V3,B1 Concept Environmental Factors + CH2MHILL :~: . ~"f",;':. : >:' ;.\ r. ,r,~ "', [.¥" ':! i';,:<" -{:(~~i"(, ' " "::' rt -,',-v , . , ') ':' >; , ,~,';' , ... ~:.:;; Y': . ~ " .. --", Federal Way , , 'l " I, ;.). ¡ ; , : . ",:¡ '", " ': !, ' ,.,' , ~ NOISE IMPACTS ;, r ì. ':~ ';, , , " "', ' " '" . - , .. . ~ ,l'it ""'."L,., ';(\':f:{~~,\~\I. ;f,>,>,' <"'.t¡:,(",:,..,t~.(/,:~., '" ':h' \'~f...:- . ',,1'.;7' t,... '.' '0, ,J. ";"..,., , í9, ' ~:: ¡ ,. LEGEND ,,~ "'~"OV"""",CT ",yEAR COM" P\.AN Elf~fNT "ROPO5£D Rf~Ov1'D ,""IlEA Of' lANfS us .s:::.' 'Ñ ("') c¡j " , : : - . ,," . .. .. , " , " ~'~":"."""~""" , !, \'>, ",,~ '" ';, ' ¡', , , , " "J , - .., , , ", , ~': '~, ;: 'Î ~"'i'~~~1 ':.':~', } ~ò, ~'-' .' ~. ' ~\\\Wl'j, ," ' '1 ;~;"("-""""j-.::::.,' " -,.,' ,1' , ::'T,'; ~,' 't, .: ",'11' J"'" < J; ',: ""'",, , ,'.i}-",~~,(",,\.~':t ,~';'~,¥ '," \., -'r":'~J.',~,>t ,-~'~, "..,,\~,," ,.J, ,~,~.""~,~,,,/ "-:",:<::2:"- ,'.¡' " , ¡p." ,(""; "-"',"'.."- ¡t" }',., '\'if: ':¡" ~. "':';; ~ ,'; y CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY Figure C2 V3,B2 Concept Environmental Factors SCAlE :... ¡oo <0<> "'" - us .s:::. ð C') en - ' 28th Ave, S ,. J ciJ .s:::. ~ ("') CI) ~ ',L, " = 400 FT TM.9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING IMPACTS TO NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENTS C2 V3 SHEET 2 No d,sphcwnerls Noise IMpÐCls on conoos near 312th SI ramps T'Ðfflc no,se may IncreÐse In Steel Lake Park fOTENTI..&.L Wt'TtNJP ) BI/Fr:ER ~,,!,-', o<vmpç-'s rMPACï;S' No d rectlmpacls 01 T&E species "E """..,., ,,'Ie [n""",.'" MìW~rý Rd , , , ;, " ~,~'- '-~1:=-': ,~- '1 " , , , .~¡ ;-;.': "': ~ ,,~\ OPTION C2 V3: N312 M320 DIAMND CD MOD, .. SHEET 2 of 2 CH2MHILL ~ -.:...^ DETAIL f h , I J~ . , 'Q i~"'~.h «,jl't . . . ---:::.¡~ "';" ~ ,.~ Federal Way SCALE ... ... ... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING .. CH2MHlLL .. ".o4OOn "> ',,' ., '" ,'."'" ','-' .. " t'.",," TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING ",', ~ . IMPACTS TO NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENTS C2 i~~1f ~ - V4 ", ':J-.. r , '-' : SHEET 1. I. ,', , f i< -r- - , . . , . ,r Up to 3 residential displacements Noise impacts on condo6 near 312m SI. ramps end homes near 324th SI extension ~¡ ,: .. . ..",~ ~,~:W' , . 'W-~+'" . ~ -" ;' '.- ~. - ' ..: .:t" ~-' . ,. '- '! \, ~. . .', SeaTac 1'-- Mali : \, - I. ,,;' ..- " Future Transit ;':Center J .~ . u' -'ò , - . us ,-5 . -J --- -. \ 0 ,-N ~ \~ tiC/) "," t :,¡ . }>:" ..\ . )' - 1. - 'fj.", '<:'"r ~- ) - ..,.'1:1";. " ~ t~~.~ÎJ.'j.. '!y .. -.:.ø:."--~.- ~. ,. . «JO FT TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING Figure C2 V4.B1 Concept Environmental Factors OPTION C2 V4: N312 N324 M320 BRAIDED CD + SHEET 1 of 2 CH2MHILL ~ D""~ Federal Way ... ... ... ------------ \. l~ .. ,'.. If t .;., ." ~ /,' """ :' ,. iI', '. ~ çni .'~,' , ,g" ~ " ¡, ' , SeaTac ¡ Mall " i: "¡;.\:,,, ~ ' I )". , .. ., ' ,'.,' "'.- C2 DETAIL ,V4 "y!, I ,~', P,:;,' , . , . , . Future Transit \ Center " ~ , :r , , ¡ :It Pari< & Ride , ;: .. j' 'L:" ,- ," "i , J;r":;, - "25tt1~. s,~ , 7 èiŠ ~ "'i' . ~ y'-' I . u;Re ¥ ' /~~I' 'þ ,J . )1,- ~" p, ..,. > . "" . . ¡.. lp, ~" " , '. " L , . ) '\ , , ",1 .j J .. " I .. , , , . " 'v ,¡;- ~, . ,.;> ..J': "~~. "';\ ,', ~ lI,'~ ~ ,J . 'PJ ,Of ,;. , -'. ' . . . -: C.'. ,;'..-:;.:,) '. ' I' " '. . , ~ .. ".. , , , . , , , "- , >t, 0 '\, ~¡. ¡ }' . r ;c, .; : '1';' t i;f:-),'{ i ; U)' i ~,¡, ,)< ~' ~¡ " 'Y' , . ," "".,<."..-.1 " ::: '" ' ",; '".I ,':~ - "\ ¿",,~,.n' . t.i-(,'." " "'Jø'~¡,' ,¡Æ I,' ..;r":,,,,:~'~ $,,;'.,. ',;'t,:'1;. ,'lot" ..t,¡,'~,,;""',:,,:t',Ñ',' ."1., ,~' '.,:"" "II . : '{V -- -;'~ .. ., ,,:','. ¡¡.' "r ,;;..;:... j ~ :, ¡ ",; , ~ ,", " \ ~. "", 'T!" . ".. , ',.... , ".. " ' .,.., .., 0 '~ '>"..-)1 , ?' 'f Aì c'T...t""',)'.. , . L 'oM'.. oj'" l,'t:'1:,~,'{'~1' \< ~ ~.,... ,.~~ , , . : ..""",.." , "'. ','-;¡',11,..I,"'.... '~" .~,!"" . "(', l- .t..., . " ' .. ¡ -, f. '" . ~l'Y";""'~"""!') '-,' ""--:\"".t'~"'\',, 'J;' . '.' ,;.,. ", "" ì ',' . ""', ¡'-"""""..~ " . " ,-""--"'::;-'~ î;l! , ...s en' ; ',;; , ,t--' \"'" 1M-. '(I) , 1', f . , . . . " . ( j ~" , , I \ ' .{... ~ 'i ¡¡¡ i g iI', : N ' . '.~ ' (I) 1 :> , , ' , ., 'T-,"" ?-.1'~,.~;t , "'n 'J,~ \ 'l;., ~ ,(" ""'. ., ' ~"', ;, . ~"¡" 1 o;{~ ~... , .'1' ,f~-Yt, \~,.r""':j,L\- "\,' .. ~~ "..~'~2:~'Rt..'. """,':' ',J':':; "',," ~".\~......ý ,'c',~,'t'~\ """"'1~'}¡"") OPTION C2 V4: N312 N324 M320 BRAIDED CD . BRAIDED RAMP DETAIL CH2MHILL ) " ) "~ .- , ,", ',' ; SCALE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY ,A Federal Wí1Y EXBTNI 111" HO,V P!OOJECT 2O-YEAA COWP, ""'" fl8IEI/T ~D REMOIIED H-Of""'" ~ ... ... ..., x. '".400" TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING - êi5 .s::: ;; 0 M fA : ;; '/ : ~: ,.¡T¡i};(,~~I :}->,~.",."",):. \~:i,t!f\~~<>;{ 0 .. , .~. .:~; : .;.. -"';, ,.~ ," ", ¡ , , , f ': ' r,., " :~~., ~ft~: ';,' .",[~:,-<;-¿,:;:}' 'Ì;'¡j'~ '. .:..'\,1t \:Y,:; , "',,','i, '," '. .;. :: ',' ",.::,,\ 281hA'.. S .,c"""" , ' ~. :' .~~: ;:'\'; ." ""':~:'~f.g"~}'J~.;.:t. "~'i;r,:t;<; "'UJ "', '," NG'" ""'-0.." "', .. ".., 1," 1., J:"-~)".""".,,CTS """"\;'" ~.: ""'h-","'" ";,: ' en "';""~""" , ""'1"""" "I, 1,,:,.;;:: ï,'" '" '¡""(:"'~7)~. 1 """"'-"', .':, --o'3,""'",r,. , W ' ", ',.' "".' '4 < ,.. <"., \',~.<: ~:"'" , ':' " " "',' " ", '," "'- W "'h.. 't."""" '-'"J",,", " "m "., ""'~CI'" ""'." """~~- -- '~" w C, ~;ì'D">\c, ,~'... , , , . ..;.~, 'L" ,-,- ". ." \ . ':)"'~'Í"'~l""""'? 'y '.. .'. 1:>~ """"'~""""" -', . . ""'-'..", , "", ,. ". """ '. "',"'.,-$:" '~' ~~'~"'~"~'~, :+, ','.:¡, vi ~,~",,:i"~~~' ~'~', .;,'i-P.J'~\ !.è", ";';':",~,:,'.,~.",~ :';';"~;.":\, ':":"""', " ' ):""""{",," "~.rnA,',j, ." ',L." "'¡¡.'" """"'I'¡"'."~'t;\..., ,> ",' 'b",' 'ð~,~.." "~'.. ~ ',':>:"i'Ú.".'O ."~';.';"." ~<. '. , "'" "'t," '. '--".' , , ""'","-,eT1Ä, 'AJ",',',",' : i:\,..'if¡ "\;~~'" ,{: ~:~'j' " ,'~ ¿ ,',' "'" ~".,' . . ',', , ';:'I'!;' fJ:'~,; ',' "",0"..",.", > , ""-,. """,...~.ç,..:",:,," """""'" !,. '-. ',,' '.."""",.",. ""',' '!""", ","rt,..,.....~, ",", ,"".' "'ê'")",¡;¡""""""""?,.",,~,,,,, "" >'. " '.,.,,~ -, ~"'" -". q" ,.' '" ,...~", ,-,';>,r""', ",.' , ". '?~~:';'~~~~'1~'~"'.t.'i.::'ì~\';",.."",), i :\<~'tr,;, ""',;,t"i.,, '" ' "', .' '.' "\.. . .~",;';~.", 'r',."",. "" , ""'. '" "::"':""'l"'~:V\',~, ,,' """"""~""'\";~""",'.~i-H.r,(".-.,¡£..."....";,,;>-:"', :,"" ,;"w " ' """'" ~"""", '-""~"- . ',. ;, '," , " , " , ',' \" "'~" ""-""", '. "'> ¡¡; ,,' " "',., .., ,', ", '., . """ "", ""'O')"h:~Jl;"\"""'l>',¥"", ""~'-:;.", ,.s:: "i' ~ :'h ,,' "" ". ""0""", , ':"'~':', .,;; "",,:, .$)~-,' .,......r;~".."j."¡?,."~",:-/~......;,,...?:,,\.,{,y,,,~. ""';'¡~~'¡"""', 0 "J, ',. OJ'>''' , , "';:~.":',' t~,fi~'-"~"¡""h_V ..' "'~V'n,'~~"" '-'M """"', '" ';,'" ,",', '" "'" "1',""" "'0' ""." ",', .. ;)v>'!:~,¡;" "",; "'1.;";:' ":'.-,, ';,.t1i"..,J;.';'...I~r,~ '~.:-' ; '..:'" , . ~'l\ '~,";', ".', (/) .... >,.,~-\..... , .,.~-u, '».. -,> >'\ \Ò" ¡,' ~'-, '~"" """'-" .~.. ", " ."!¡,. '¡" """,~ "Y','" "", ""C ";:'," . ~'~"'~\"';;.'t¡""""l." " I' 'Pi\';,"':~,\t,V;\\i~J.i;"'~+~,.,,1.J,';; ""'>"'t".',':i,',::~"~"':",J,;," ' , ',)<. ~ .. '-" , """ , , . " '" ' ~",')1~-"}-"'">\;"';'-,'1<,'::'~,','",,',~'"i..'~, ';',""':~"',~~~I,¡ ".;...f,A,""',1";",""""",'~,'\.t.",".,t~,'::\i,."";.i"',, ',',,-,<,',' 'f::;~'J...,;,.' ' , . '" """.' , ~.. , . , """ ',,'. " . , -'. '!"",,' ,,- " ' "'\>.",,- ,"'" "'. 'I ' 0"""'<,. 1,.< , """~ C' '" ',. , ...' -, "';""""',:. "-1.'\,~, '~"'... '. '*-r.;", :: , '7 "',0" "¡""',"'" '\""~i~)~',,{ ~ "',',~, t.:',' ,r '>'~, '~~'~" i~,' '7" ". 'i' ". " "(:",'" "', " .,.."",~ ' "i',þ_-", ,.~I.'t, '-r"- ,'".. ...... ,: ' .,. " "', :..\',,~, ""i", "', ' ~. '.... "f'.! ~ .'~ '" " , "'};::' -",.,..,"'~ . .,., , AY " , '" " -;:"",', '.\. :'q,-~;),,> 11..," CITYOFFEOE~~~SSSTUDY .~ ;0',:", ,.,,-: . ì"," SCALE CITY CENTER A . ., , "" . '" .. ~ .. "LEGEND ,- - , EX"T"", RWECT - :,:'~oè"c:.. """ E""'" PROPOS£O """""0 . 'w... OF WÆ ,"" " "'" . ,:' è~ '. ' r; -' ); "I!,...-,., j:. ,,¡,-'),-;¡z~ ¡'" . ,/ "'..:~,',-, ~,.' " ;'" , ~ ",. i' , \ '( - ~ J, " ",-,'> ':'-,' ,( '~ ~ ,~"'~ Federal Way " . 400 FT TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING Figure C2 V4,B2 Concept Environmental Factors IMPACTS TO NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENTS C2 V4 SHEET 2 Up to 3 residential displacements Noise impacls on condos near 312th St ramps and homes near 324th S: extension Traffic noise may Increase ,n Steel Lake Par\( fC1fFNTJAL WE7U,AJ() ~ B\JFf' ~~ þ, o~r;¡¡CJI area i"'~8ÐI6 :PAf'ACr~ No direct impacts on T&E species '" """"""'"""""""'9"'« " . - ~, '. , '"" ' I ',~, " " ' -, ' Military Rd, '. ",'" ~ -'t ',,1.. '; " . " " " ,'.,. . - '-Î\> \ '~, " . ~ , , . , I ~ ~-,; 1.- "L L,='~- . " .y -. ;~ ~~';~:~',:<i OPTION C2 V4: N312 N324 M320 BRAIDED CD SHEET 2 of 2 " .. CH2MHILL I H . 2\ . .~, '",; \t¡'~. _1:' t, , . I ' . " '..' 1'/""--". I -Future , ',.",:,:r I '- I.,... .." . - '" .. T..... I .,<.' '. ' y..'" . .' , , Sea"" ",', '" 1 cé,IB,. ,J " ','j", ',,:~:" :.",~,,"""":',",::..,,',' ',"" "~'(þ,'" ~~', ~." Mall, , , :'. ' ,'"f, ~:S~Ã.L;Ave,:"i' . " ."....,1" I' ". ~""") " '-'~"'i..; "', "" """. ! ;" ~""",;", ",.. ',,' , " , '.,'j"',"'i,",}"/-.."<",W",,,-',,',.,',""""î¡,",",,'.,,',," ~', , , ' '1",1,,' 1 .rJt, , ,'H, ~,',JJ 1 1.1 s........ .0""",""." \- " . . . . , ' , , f I~ ' , I I , , 10 rooet DesIon DOT""",, S- " 1 "',- " ~,,' ," '... ", , " " -, , , , ' "..: ) AblItV ty_ws , ", " " ,,-, " S .J ~" " . -.. ............ "'. , " . , ".. ,.:' " '-', --" " /"',.. ¡o.", _,~ ,~-_.S, """'" ",,~, J.,., ,,1 -I ,. ""'" í '-'" wi" , ;;')¡'; t-j1' -~' ~ d'_"""',="......~ "",.it!, ,t " ""'. ," -. " , t '-...., . .",::r ' v., " , . =-"-~M':;.....m~.":",,:,";..... 'J'"" }..t \1..,' \;, '~~\",', 'l"" J ~ , : ',',',,': .t~ <r :'!J:--~ " .',' ~~'!, ,-~~, .. ~ ~, \':f'1t""'~,1 "'f ~ theconllruclion \epoCenlialdlll'U,......, '~r" . '-', .. " ',.", ~ - " I .. .,~ C. r ~', "'. "'""I8råI8" lI e,wou,ld,aee"" "",."",' ',""':_, , """:,t"~"","',iì..!,",'""',,,"¡,~,,',,:,,"","":,,', "','" ,I I ;~", ""I,"~,'l:~:;#"'~,',""'f' ~~i 't-, :: ";""~', ,i'..Jì",,",r,r,' I' fl ..... " ..,"'" ',' "':', ,.'. ":A"f, T ' ,. ,'~.. " - ~, . "", .. , .. , " .~.. , , . .."<. .. 'S'" '" ", f+,,<.., "'" ' " , ' ". ", '~'-" ",. ' , , ,':1,-..., ". ., ; -""". '""" .r, I~~" !-"'¡'."',""""""", ..,","~,'-".i,;Çft"',,,',' ;I,:' ""Þâit," 1\'\'1'," , )" :, ¡'~ f I'-":ø~,;', "'-',""', , ,...!..,.., ;"..,;;:.. ,'.- .- , "'.' ,'..¡,..... "~,.: &, -' . , .-:' , .' '-.. . .;.. :'~-- , . .... , . - ".. . .or.!,., -.r...., ,- I ',r, '.. ." ...." . J , ~I~~,..-""!",.">",.,.:-,.,..,,,,,.:"""'....,' ~."';J:L.:".,""',,,"'~"H',~, '-."'r-~F','.~;':'..~....,;",:.,. ..,RIde, :!:1fY"i.". !,;'~.'~" "'e'!II~ . ~' ~~ ," .. 1'1~""1" I '\ .,. , '. , ~....~. . " . " 'c'. \ ", ',--- --', "', , , """'-"" .. ""', ..-:--~ --~, . '" ,- " . . ~" ~~'~. "'-,.." < ""'---' "'" "'" -" " " ,""", . . , ""'" " -...;:, ' ' " , , t, '*...- " ", ,. . ~', " 4- . . , r-, ' J... ~~ .,,- "'--..... '--'--' ", 1M' , \. Jf..~. ',,- 'r' I f"f?':,:"",.""""'" --"~"'-" , &-;'<'. , "', '\, "'~'¡""" l. C - ' 'iìi .. õ.:'~ " '.. v V. ""IIiII ,'. ~'.." ~ fi ......., '.. , ".. ~ . -, '".400" TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING Figure D4 V1.A Concept Design Features .. CH2MHIU. ....~ Federal Way DI8T- II '" 0<0 V .......". »YVoRCOIoP.O\MaaENT -~ -..... IOØDIEII .. N- Q6""" ... ... l1li ~. . J I : ',1 . '. "," ... e. "'!' j, 'iJ..ih"..öd "é ,..- -" , ¡", 4. ,,'" ....¥ ._",~'I","."\!"I ,', I , D -". "'!J!.- ""'" t. AND,.,""",.'",.".;, IMPACT.TORO~~~~ V1 ~"((,'"".:,~~~t,,,.~ ::,"~J.."', "',1,\,'" ~\, '~,; \" ,J¡" .,Futur~ , I'; "K-' ElM .:~ I i, -" ,-....~, " "., ...Toc, T.."" 'I' "'--nls t~ ", j ~' "IiIV';" ,- ~, !J> Mall: '!Center, ..-,. .i'" t', '", '., , .......-. on homes near 3241h 51 extension I r ~~1 ';' ;' , ,- " - :I ,. i~, 'iì j '" "'23' d"A' ;;e' S,' -..- ,'I' '. """ ,. ~ , " , '. 't'- >, .' ,¡f ) No "'" -- " ' .' ..... , '. . 'Ø' I, ~:' J f 'I 'j "'lA' '" . " "- .. . . , ..._-,..." 1'01< "'..,J1."J"'" ',e:, " "., S. r ,¿ ~ , \ ' . ...' . I.. ~ ',' f, 23rdAve. _en , i', .. TOE- " . .. '., , "'-."'... """'....,.œ " '\;>""""" "~ ' ¡¡ ,", '" ',n" '" I" ~ _.T,II!:.'n.,,_,"'~,,~'_"""',od,',' ",."",1'-':",';,-'1, "\'!,,'t' -~';',; ~~"";"'~"",',,' I','~' I' :~', " ~,)~~J",',,' :,t"-"'," ~', ..,'>?;~emò~;s,<i9I,h'ál'~"t, i"~~,I"'w,;.1-11,',"_ll'."-!.I,;,.,fI ' , " "", :,0' ~l, "~.. , ""~", 'Z' ,'(0Pt'on~tJ\Y. ~"""'\¡ , I ,t.,('}\'~:'~ ' "'~' "w" "",;"u",-,..... ',. ", -, ,,--II.: -"'.-;", ' " "', P'1E.'"""~,, 'I ' '" ,n", " , .: ',,:~~II_' ",',~ ......",' -,', "'. ,',""~, ~' 'þ 'N"'Ww.AII.P~~..)~.. ,! ,"""'~ f" ",' '~':'7,',: ,~,ll', ~,~,. " , ""'- "'..,.,. " ,- """" "-T~ .."."" 'S~ , t.. ' ..... ,..-- " i;~ "~..",.~-.,::, ","j':', r._~ ~.." '" '~,v, ,.r""""" ,2!:\~ve,..,- ¿""'. ",' :"~:1' ,..~..~ .', ", ,1'; "', . ~,...,. -', ""Prk '. ,""'.... '. ,- , "'- """, .. "1:"'--"'" ' .', " '" 'M'"", '" " " "', . ", , """, "'" . ,'" "!"1~':-!I',"""""-~'¡,;,,',,::~1.,,~,'!"'-'~"'-NO,ISE -j &~, , ~., ':',' / '1-'_'cri~..'.>'~:"~:';J,.:/t., ' '. '. ,.".. ' ~." '" en RJde." . I' ", ,"'" -,~..,.",. " " ',,'. , '. ~ ~...'" . .... ; '£ '-' ", .; .- " '~,.. .. 0.. ',-- ' "., ""-~-" """"'~""", ,L. '~i'..-" I,' I.. . . " , - < r "- . , , -""" .P ¡ ..'. , " """ '" "k:' ',N'" ", " '", ,~ """""'" " """;'~"#~"'~ ,,'.I,;-'I\t=l\,' ,", :,' -,,',- ',", " , ,~ ,~ ""'" n.~,. ,', <.' ;jk' ,. '~... ,4:. ~ .:', " '"'... .... ",'f"..T ¡~'~ '. ':.i;."~ ','" If' 4..,'~s """"~.311<'"' ", ,.,-,.-,1>. , ""':""'~~,1í: .'".."" :".,,'! 'T,,'.'i"-""'~~,' ' " y , ",. ¡¡. . ,~ > . . '. ~ .; ~'-"'ii " , ',":) Pf.,,~,,;.- - . ,,~~ ,I . i't .. I ,'> . \ . '.~~ OPTION D4 V1: N324 DIAMND M320 ~ ""'..~ Federal Way ... ... ~ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING Figure D4 V1.B Concept Environmental Factors +- CH2MHILL .. "'400FT , 1'~)' ';:"""-:"""-"\'~ '" 'J -Ti"' '",' /, i',::" ATTlUIIUTU D4"r, ,,'I~. "\,,,-..1'-:,"_""""""':" "~I' ,.,,", ',""""',i,,"": ' ...' '.. ~'", " .' '-f'"",.,,, PnJVideI~I-5.CC888I1tS,324IhStlwl V2 ',{' !1.\"'.:.,i"',.,,,',",,""..':"~,aj,J("'","",.',""',..~f,,,"'1O\o,":""""; ,", i"',',',' " - 'f'~' '~=""",',." I {5iH:t,;/J.","?-.""".,.""....:,.",.,: Plvvkleuddltlonlll _\-weal connectivity, ~ , , ':"......-. ~Å .... CÞ 1;, "'}: , , .. ., ~, ProvIdeIlilk8getoWeyer!1aeuserWllySoutl1, ' , '¡ , .' ,~, ,--t 4~';' ';}, ,"";'. ~" ," SesTac ,', '. I,' ' .. i'~'t" ; ,'l :'1'" .'-.",,>.,,1 '~'I " ' Mall, \ ""!' !,;i:: ICIŒI!NINGCIUTUUA '" '1t.:!"... '-fl, "J'...~r'. ~,. "" -, , . t'¡.: , .,,:"I'~;.:/';~.'!"',', ',':",'"" t ,-lv' ..., , . ,ow', , . ',. " ;¡, '", ~~=~~Pltll9tSIa'ldarda"Propoeed, "I.,,":;!' C,: .'1 ';' }.'~" -. "':: ï ~ " ,:,,' i '\,' I "'.. <$'13rdA~'Š"" , .;t,,:t!"'_'J\~'¡';'\i~: ,',' -, \~,\ ", I". ',,'" "",c, Con8truc:tIon &saIne ,'.' , " \. ,. " : '.. ' , ..., ¡, .' , - ¡ , I , ConMrucIIonofn_8IructureCMI, rHimaintlneatS,3241h 'J'1'.8},.I",t.,' ""',',"""',.f,:".f""I,' ", ,'-I,' '). " , ,,23rd Ave.S ..., ",," ", :JJ' ~ ,J J 1 ~ 81re8t81dovertheullltingS,32OtI\SBOIHWT1pWOUldextend 1': 1,,~: ,t .,~ "-8J. 1.'/"" 1.;, ' ~ ,1' ' CIJ , "'",,, ' .w , , - , -,',...,___n , , ..p#-----¡ '..~ I T:6" " 'j," '..~, '..:.,. _:ä,' :" '.. . '1,....... ..,,"""-.,- e _...";"'-þ... ~ t...- ." . -,JI"~ ".;' """\.1.'-' -, ,,'" \ " I, &' , ~"'.' , .' , ,,- ',' '}. . ," ',.-,. 'c,' - -',' ',I. "'"".,..,.. '-. ,',', ,:"""." ."... ...~ '" """;"""~...',".',..',.,'..""":---",.,,.,,' , ~, """""""",.""".,,11"""'.'1:,. ."",""';,,', ii,',','" , ',.'., ',," ~~,.. 8"','..,1.,,,,8"'., ", --4, "', ",",'~' " r.,I",~",~,,",,' .'-, ~', -,- W.".7- 'i~""- "tI.. """'-- "'Part p, .... " ,- ..,"'- "". '----., ,..'\,. ,--:' "'/',.....,~ i '~i"Jr.. ~}" "-.'. , ,'r ,í.'~' . '-'." "'" ".~"". &, I' , 0 ," "',' I """"1... . '., r-' ...."""...", 'f' ,.,. { " r .. ' . ~-"'.,',"',,-'" ' '---:','" . .:,'L"f:.J'~':~:^';'~ .-11 rO,'; t ,'" '_,.",i, ,"¡'~ ":;I'~ '~',"':"",~'," 'c, ~.r. ...."" " """'..'" - .. """'-".1_" ' "', '--......... ,'..""", ,', ""'} t " "of" :..1;1 ,--' ",' """"........ ", \ ","~ ,,~,i~""" '..,..".~~..,.:, ,~~ -""." ' " ~'\_:' .,t..-t::,"'\:'" ,~", , )' ;,...'r;...\t~~::.- } ,..' "-, ~[j¡j. "'", ' .." . , ---,'Ii.... ~ ...-- - r' ' ,-1 ..."", I"""'~"" ,',~. . ',:J , ." "~"""""'¡' i ',' ~ - .~~r'! ~;'" 't.~~'~"::,~'~ ; "'", ~, ' '.~~'!..," 'It.. 1 . V,. ... . ' .... .... 'l'. . '. '..,.' . ....~ '. r. ' ~ ,~,.~ F'ederal Way x. t'._" TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING Figure D4 V2,A Concept Design Features +- ÇIoIlI ~ III!' -.! ... ~, "::-:')w¡"', ~ IMPACTS TO NATURAL AND 04 ';", ,Ii ¡" , ~~" ," BUILT ENVIRONMENTS ~Jt ' "', " V2 JZ'> (';'to:,' ~ #I Up to 3 residential displacements r', '.~'J! :t,:f ~ " Noi8eimpaclsonhomesnear324thSlextension ~ It' ': "'j'" ".;. " ,¡ and OI1-f8mp r ~, ., " '" II ,. . " '? " , '. Trallic noise may incraase al North Lake , .,:' . '.. u' .. FIshIngAcc:ess " ~' , I . .1'8ÀlÏ181111C6;1,,~ fCfEN, T\.\r ~(jo ~ ; .t,'.., I' .; \ l' ¡,~' ..DMP...~ " , , \, ì ,f ,i' ./,,1 '.#" ",..n, Nodireà, Impacts on T&ESpecIeS"'",, .-'"1,.',,',',, ','t,'" : ",',.""';',4,'"" t",.,"'~ , T&E:_ondEnd8ngerod "'I'. I ,~:,'~'; L ' " r,,' ," .~,-- "-'#-',-. ,,','-'-, '~"'- "?'"",::..", ~' ",." ",'¡""}""""'f'.~, .~ ," ..~ "~.,...... ' .... ,. '. " J't~""""'"7. "" " ""Ì"".~ ': " ',~..,. ..., ,'0 ~... ... ' Þ'" ,0' """'-"~ ..- ..........., .. ~~... ,lI.. "..' ;, :.:'. ~ JI.., , ~",. ~\'.,,#.. "'~""""',"'¡';,' ."t° r,'~',' .' .', -""" ""T. ."""""" \"':,¡,;,-,::"':~~,.,",,: , . ~ -,--~,.t,~., ~~~jJ I,,::,:~ ~ "~". , '.,.. --- ' 1~~ .~~ " . 'r- e " ,-.......;;,:¡~) "'II!'I',: ~ ,.... ':\, ~~ '~ \. . .~ ~ ; , ¡c,,) . i~.' , , "!jg.' f:"~ I ' ~ ~' " " ,.. .. .' , ,..:..'-'....~' it¡ ....;1'" : ""'~" ,. !;~r~ " ~ ""..~ Federal Way CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING )00 ... ... x> '-'4OOFT ,(: I, II' SeaTac r \ Mall I- ,I \ ; , , L Future Transit ; ,¡Center i ~', ; ' , .'~3rd'Äve. S' 1 " j J I) , . Figure D4 V2.B Concept Environmental Factors + CHZMHILL .. . "t""" .;' .. 1".400FT Figure A5.A Concept Design Features .. CH2MHIL1. ~ r'~~ Federal Way !DO .... ... ,-- '> AS ~ .."".~ Federal Way x. ,'.400" ,~ , \\, ;.. ~ '" ... , ',' , . - 'I, .,' ,";; ,;" :'I,' '\"'~.. '. <f"........: . i~1:' ',' ì ,' ' , , , ~-:1t- :~.. <>,' ; ",;.. , ¡",.' " ,-, . ";-' , ' ; , .... ... '1,'~ ~....,'" , '-',"" ..~ Federal Way ,,'-- ~- '" '..... ';i 'i. '" , ' ,. ~ )1 yy' -/ ~, ,"1 j. I ¡ ,I" , " , '\': II it. ! l ,', . . ,',.; - .1"'.1:(;'1, '. ~""",?",.;,-~",¡"!"",..{,J.., ,~,""",.,~" ~,r ..ø,'1fJ, F-, " . r""""""",,""-if,"'¡' ',', ',,'ì), ~J , ";'~..J ~ '.. .-j",",:,",,'?,,' [': . t., ' .~,' ./11 " :;." ;,' " '" . ' " ~, 1'l,';!. . ~~,.¡ 'I .... ."', ,-,,'It 'Y ,." '"..),':' ,ì. *'"\ " -.' ," ,"', ,'~' .' . "i'>' .,.. ;-.- MilitarY Ro&d ¡ t' '¡ "., ,J.~' " ,::"",~"t ',If , .. ;f .. -, -í¡, , .d;' , ~¡ r , t- .. "" ,.' ,'~"~ ¡¡ .trt~"~ ;¡ ,Áw-,,; "',";': ., "'). ,~, .",,('.1 r"'-' I ' . . f , -; >' ,.. . '" , , ,., r r , i J " r . h,: ," 'f ~ . . , , I ¡ "" ëi5 í N' . (I) . 'd ~ ;.. '.' , ..-,,', '! , ' " ,\. ¡ -', '" '" ... "j I: J "'k I' " O" . ;¡/ " \ . J. , . ':",;' ,c, {;;~1"""i".$",b ""'~"..."",." "'<f""',,"¡""'-'.-H'!', -'r,"" ",";.':""'" ",'..-' "":"-'""J,t,<¡¡"";",, ", .' .. k ~,- : '. ,it ..., ,r.", "'.,. J 3OlhAve, S. " .~ ~:-tl ~ ' ¥~" ¡ ':ii :~,~,~;,:~;';~l." / '.";,'1"1"- '~=, "",'¡;~:V ;;'.'~""'" "f":'" . """""":" T'~" -'{jf' "'Y:'"'-',,~~.~' ',0' ,~~ ,'~ , ,~ ~ " -- ~ ',.. ;, '1" j¡', i :::r ~ ", . ~!f ! " "!' :; I . X> LEGEND ÐOØTN> ""'IlOV POGIECT 20- Y1'AR OQWP, P\NI EIBoEO/T _0 .9OO\/ED "-OIlNÆI ¡> . , 'j; ", ,~,.'" r " ¡' 'I', '", ",-_1 #"...""" ' T;( '-\ il ,~>. . :'. ",,',,'~,:;,_~I y¡¡L '0 J:¡;;,,¡jt I , \ " .-' - " '~ 1 SCALE " "0 " 1100 ..., III> CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY Figure F6.A Concept Design Features TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING ". 400" ~ Ii' ATTRIBUTES F6 f"'OVlCCS now 1-5 access at S 288th 5lrCCl. SCREENING CRIT£RIA Ability to fT1~ Dc$lgn Stilcdar<;i$ Funda"'){ 'talty mee;¡; WSOOT [)SSlgn Slar~arcs as proposed " ÇgD~!!J¡g,9!l:;;IiliJ!!';¡' Presence 01 eXIsting 1,5 undcmass shortMS conSIT\JCtiO1 , schûdulc one wculd rnsull 'n little dISruption to ex,sting t-ave! pattBms " ' ,...;,~ t, "'.1. 0 '(' ì~ :'Þ ,- I ' ~'.,... , -: ,~ , , ,,~,~.. ';¡f,O"""~, , ; II' ,I""."..,,\I , It,, ,fu ';]i.. f../,I " \ . .t .:J- ,-:to' I ' "", 1 , ':",: ~'; ,dll ",,' ,t' , ",-," . ,"."., ,.",..-, .'.' . ; .;..' .. ',l~,..,""'" ,'~,' t" '" , ' ~" ,~\, ~~." ":,' 'n','~,i,,' ,,0, ".':--~;',,~~ ,.,~-,.' . , .' .". "iì'<' .' :'I " " ,<, "'J;¡'-":1'ì~d" . ,:;::."'"","",;:~,~'J"J. i ,., r¡¡ "~ ?>-~" '7 ,-\"..~,' ',' <'t' ",-"t,t" ~ . . ~'f'; ',. !r,:í"~ '~1t--"'.:J. ,.;,;"" ~" ""OJ, ,.,.~,/§;';,~,'~~' J.A ~"I 1:~Ìr; '~~~ '>",,".\," ~,"I;;..t,t,,""",.~.',~~,,' ',,"',~ . Y~ ,:':~) , J. ~. ,',' '. ' -'¥",', ,/~¡\J~,~:fjr'::¡~: A. !',.~,~~it (~.\i;.. ", ',' ,'*~ ,f""""" :r<'i. ~fi: t.,.".¡Þ -;. ",' " <"\~ ",", '~', ,;1) .JIIr '..."f., t.'- 1. ~'r \ ... ' .', i'~ ,,¡. " .. .'\.14,,' ',:\"',('; ..... "". 'II¡ . . '.... ,¡ r> ,'", "f , ".. . , ,'\> " ,,)\ , ',' .,~...., . ~o\.I':" ¡þ- ,!'.~:: 7 '¡# . ' . .. ... " f~ 'I:. ' v- ,- .J, ' ,,*,Ii \, , , '-:1'1-. . !'~" ~.\.l'J" ,~ f" i ¥ ~ ) I , , 1<' ',~ ' ~., " ¥.~~'~'... ,;, i ",-g:.", . ",,",',"": " ~' . f! .. ," -' ,"" ' "... . .,... . " -1 ",¡(';:p".)'-P .,., . ; ,- ",1' ¡ç.. ~;¡t, \, ,i.!J' . . ,'--r,' :'J,',;Ft~""..'. OPTION F6: N288 DIAMND ~ {, .. , . '~'!" " },~ . ¡ ~~ ... ..' ~J¡ ¡." .. CH2MHILL ' ;,~'--:;' ,," , nJ: ' ~",\ , -":;,,:,' j,/'.;,: ' ,¡ I,' '~,' 1~~~, ',.' .:/.-:::. ,!f "¡' ", ) ... ~) I ~¡-. IMPACT TO NATURAL AND ~ ," "",..""". " ,¡¡~....-t ' L 7" ;,' "":r:""'",'",,, ."i,,~ ',,: ,,'~,I:¡, '! ;. " M'I,\ÍarYRo8d ' ,,' ~ ,BUILT ENVIRONMENTS F6 .'. ,', 'L,;t""'~"t"" ",,-f-;;'fIÙ..... "I. \'It','''.;, ",' .1' ~',,~';¡l,q\o';. "",'.1,.1" ,:', t...~~ ,'J "', ' '"',,, ft.., ",:0>'" "j ! ",:,,'1' Maydisplaœcpto4homesandachu:1;h . ,~-" ,"', :. "'i',">ror ,," ,'" -I " ,,_,\,1., ,,' ,1"","'~!J. """,," ;'~ ""',',,! " *""~';I.",m'!,,"',,,.,,"r,:tl J,'",'..1'""',,~,",", 1'1' " i , ,'," I "","';',:)~ Noisei'TI,pactsonhomesandchurchnearramPtl ",,'. ,,"",' ',,'{.l,1' t'fI~""""""f..~.tl-r" ~t ~l~,JII""'~' ", .." - ,,", ~'".", , p, " "" , At , ' ' ," .'... " :1Þ ,'t,- ~ 'i,"', 1.""" ~ -,' "',.' :',! ~,1~f,,;¡~ :~1<.'" , . .. - ',.,,"'" ' ",", ¡ Nopar1<lrnpac15 ,'. I' If- I ,"Y,...,'\ , ,'" ,"':""""'" ,',"""",,' -"I ,¡..,~~ ;,., ' ¡ ..:J:~,/ 1-.",~~~, ,,:1:, .'~,~~t",r'" ' 'rT r't,.",., t".-".... \:"':'~ \ " " ,.-" Twocmssingsmastreembyramps " ,C~.., ""'~ .. ."r}"I, i;tJ':\' , \ . . .,.."",,' ' .' '-"",,~ - ~¡I', '~"'-',-- ", ~,"','<"'Y','~ir", "," (~~" \!1-'t~SlrB8tT1notuS8dbYT&Especies "",¡~:,""" :,"!' '""",¡...îI"""""-"""""",, -', """', ,~"A,,\C:I~t',,~r,",,':,',:,'l"',','#;,',~," ,r r ' ¡ i"\I,~,",,"," ,.~,k~""~,',',':,",~',V":",i"t:1 '!.ETh""""', ,"".,'" En4angorac:, , , ~-~' "~~; ~ ',- "', -, ~/~t)--,.." f~'" I " . f #I fJ .-r"i1"""'YM' ,'-'1' If,' ,.~"i~ .",:J,,'~, ""","",!¡..';;"',,"""',,~.'~"",""", ""','.,1"',,-""'" '""",.;",¡..t.:""""t.",l;r.,'" ""',',' :,:;::-.."", ',")"l<lf,~'It',:'"... , ", 'r/1--"",f1' t,' 't,""", . ~,' -'~', I '1I"'iif'~"'i~r:;,-' .,..~. """'~ T, " ",.-, I 31; t,~, I '. .J~ '"..., ".. ft, '",," ,'~:'þ' .~,#"" """'~,',"'.\ ""\""" -,~}"""",.:r. "!"""":','"f "'f,, \ ,'.-'! I " ,." ""~..' "h "'iii'" ':-""1 t" '" ' ""', ,.""""'¡ij( 'j ,!If:'t'')'",,.., "~'-;'".., .' ",;,;,,;, '~ -',-. - l' \'.7 "_1, . ,.;.- _,,'d, ,,"", ",I,! ...,',~", "o;J"""" ;."r.,.'", "._,',/;'j:"" '. ,> "","'I" , --""",., , H " 'I , ' -"," TI-.U:.\ ,,",~' 1 ,'i ,F ",) '~,,"',~' ~'T,': :, ""~""~",","""',',"'"",,, (1),",""--' :!,,' J", ,,'?",,\",L_',,"'~, t,..,-",..' "ìt' '. ' ,'} '" ~ ,;." ' ,'..., ,¡ ,\,'"",." -,".1 I ""~\'$"rts ""'\~I\ ,~ . ,,' I "," ", ...."",,""', ,',w'" I, ,.-lfI1",... ' " "'./,' " ""."."'. .'. "'¡;,¡>:.~, ~. ,..... ",$>1'",.", -,u.,", .' ' ,", '~,1' ,"" -".", ,~ >-.. '." ".,.",- " ,~""""" ,'. ,', ¡, "':"""",',,"IoSTREAM~" ,..,.,.f: <;"'.-'.',' """"'<",",-,~'.~. ,.., ~I!<: " .." t ,,~, , ,...'~-\ ,"", '.. I"~ ~"'.",""',ì ,,';' <t " ,,0:,' ""'\\'¡' ", ,~,,'I,MPACT8.;If ',"';' "..,,~.",,:J',,\" "\',,',,',; '",", "",", "',I"",.,,'S-- ~,",\","J"-",Ok"",, """. """ ". i ".,. " . r ",. q. . ..# ;".~ " 1 ,...~,", '~\ "'*-~;.r':(~ '" . 'I' "'\ '" I' I "'..,," \"'.'~~'.~ 'J';v'" .." "", " . -, '... '~J" '" ""~IJ" '.~!'1';.:" ,,",":. ",:, ~;", " NOI8E~"" ," '", "w' ","'_~'s "P'°l-!'...'" ,,""1""""" "",,"<9",""'," " "I',,"è\', "",J, IMPA,CTS,,' "",~" ".~"""""""'" ',", i,.¡.r.",~,':-,:,-~""..;,~l" " #'-',<r,~,! ,,", ,'" ' )"',' ", , -<, " ,3OthAve,S"", ",.:1~1;"~"";"'I.~ 11,"'1",' J. """,",', ,; ,,',', , ,~". ,,-17 ,',""" ,¡ ',#,"'">f,,....::t,,~"""'1 .,...' "",....' , '-;"'~..,.', ' , , ,'"f ... ~ ...,' - .;1'1'..' {",." AV"",- ".....~~,.' """""'¡I\'J""""";¡¡",,"it,,~,,,, '""¡""""l",',;W>,',,,L,',I,,','"""" "'"',,,"',t.," ,~,I ,:.1!',,',', ',,' \""i"',-"',"""'."~,~,,,,,'II,',""",1"".",.""'.",~,','i,";'1.".;~;;Jb;. "", """.'~"I\.,"~""'W,,, ., -)':>',>4: f~~;'J1"', r, ',' , " ': *«1.. 5'~;:¡",ft'i>"4, ,','" i l""r;;;~y ~".Þ'" ".«r.- I "',";', ,J"" ~':"If, "<".~f""""'Z'\'I!~;',"-.n,..,. ","",~",t.',',.t¡~l~1t,~~~t:{!?~ ý' -""'."".."~ , ""A;~,~.' ":'~~\,,~, 9Ji!i " "- ' ~'>" , ", ...."..~ .. - -, ¡--, ~..., -, '. ' " ~ ,.II-,! , '.' 4; ""'-...' """"'.""""" ,,',Ii':"" . """,: """':r'!'IJ,....~,..""';,<\rr-""".,,..>(::; """"""'~"" "t::=:J ",' ':", "'.1.1,1","""""'", ",~,~,' \'~,~~~{'J',~ ;,~~,~\aI'"," ~?t.~,' '~~~,,' '~,'t' ~, , """',",:', ,',~ ,~~~ ;;;i;~,,'?{~£~l!V~:\ ",;,"t, ;~~~:v;..,~~,~*M, ",' Sf, fl,l ' '1I,~~r~¡,I'ali,' '~'~"','" '"f",', -""'Y, ","'.':,J.:",=..t., ~' '\-+l:~~"-:"~~' ';'" ....' " '::--. ., '. 'tit: ' ,-"'~,':'/: \ ~h ",;ì, rt"":~'t)-. - ~¡¡(J. ' ,oJ. ""'-'1 ~,,'" 't ""'I~I?"...~"t¡..._\.., ","'," >', ',' " \,,'\"',',:'~,,'" , "",tIi:lÞk-- 9.~ ,J... " , r, .. 1\1. """"if ',' ,'",', \"',. 1 ','" "',1' "',' 1:,\I~~:~..""'Jih,I.' ')'.. STREAM ' ",'I}"~",'"I,<'$,",,,-~,' .CH,URCH, ""'t1,,V ':Jr.,:'¡"~"(:.1' ~', .'>, ,þ,,¡" , )"},- "\:t" 'IMPACT' ',""."",,' ¡;.. 'Y' . ,,~ 'I"'" "~~,> ',' .... ~"""":..$""""'~""s.. ,t, ,- 'f' ..;.,¡* ",'I ,,'<6' " '" " """"'" i_," i~""',' """"',""1 ' :. , ~ ~'!V" "',.r; ~~'.1 ": ~"-..~"., .".1 -:fTf'y '..'~:i , ~. '.";~"I' ,,[..,......;.1 I" I" ,,~"., \. .,rD."" '4".-i1".'~ . ',',', ~~, ".._t.~!;.} ;\. 'r~, r:~,"'",.,,' J ....( ~,'J'" " ,,"'~iJ .'" 1,'~f~,.;.,.," 'oJ" ",""""'~.l ',',I,t)"" ...I.".~ ',y', "~'l>t/1fI'....t"\'r ' .. ~th4~ i:I --- "- '- ,4 .",.. , , r'~ c""" ~'114f:". """Lt' . "ÇT~,,~~, ",... , ".. ~"fIII .. '.. . 'V ~ ~ ,... n f! ".. ~, :, ,"'~',;;""""',I";"',,,,,,.',," ,,:f1 ,{,',.-', -::¡j¡F""""¡' , """.' " \' 1,'( 1Ft" it 1,',",'-'"',!"",'"f.' ":-\:~"7.' "II, ',," ,4' ...ti..~, "'.. ,,$,.. "j., ¡ .'..,t .... """.,,'!.," "':, ' '" -"""'-,' '" . ~ '... '. "" ,- ..- ... ' ;~," 'F';.;J'h,' :: ,J":"-¡,,, , \ 'I, 1 .', A", ..... '>.:¡., \ ; I'~i.i"~,,,.., ',~.Þ"':" "*,' ,',"'> "',-, "t""'~". ,.",P.. .:r'~\I', '.......,ilIl""", t,;¡,,!t::~ 4,,1.."",~' !J., ""~," ""',"" ,..I, , <' :'#,',.1,J:r,""""", I~C', ",,~,'Ii, ":;:,"~"¡" \..:r-:, ¡.. i'Jf'~"":, "",w,: ',.;':':<;'~/, ~ '¡}.'l:1j',' ':'.. ,~ "'. .'-, .e¡-.... it,} , ' . ..."*'~.....~ ,.. '~",' , <'~"'" ',;,.,.t"i,fÞ-" '."",,',.,.,', ,,' ,,';.t:I, , ,,;1 'I ":':~',~,~- ~,~~J,""",'l",." .. .. .... , ,7" .. \... A: '.." ,'or, ;t" ¡ , .~. " , ,}¡:,", .:. ':""""."'1 ",.".'JII'>. I, ,'-,'¡; .........,~ ',j-li\'Jll>.." '",""'" ,~""",~""'" '.. "';,"J> '.. ~ """ ""': "'..,"", "",i>¡P-tr 'v "", , ~"'~""""~'~' ~. "'1/ -, ,- .nrr , ' , ,,' .. ']' 1"" ,'" "..:: " '" ,II' ..,,', '.þ'-"~.,."",k-"""",..,,, " ", ,.':I.",'~ ,f!', ,~'" ... ~",-~"""","'~'" ,\,' . SCALE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY F" F6 A OPTION F6: N288 DIAMND . ... ... III> CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY Igure, ..... Concept Environmental Factors "0<100" TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING .~ ; L ..... \~' ".>t ',~; '0 \ ~... i'>!' \';\... ,~.... ; c;J., , "",,~, ,~. '.'f:, . ' . ."~ ,!IìJÒ ':>: . ,,\,' .;. 11>.. :;,' ~! ...~"i> .. ... "<\ot ~ "~ Federal Way ~ I ,'::1' ,?2' x- + CH2MHIL1. ATTRl8UTU ProIIIdes new Hi øcce&6 al S, 296m Street with . ~ tOnnectJon to Dash PO<ni Road, ProIIId81 addibonal 8861-wesI netwolll connect1VIty, KRI!I!NINO CRITERIA Ability 10 "'"' Desion S~r2'~ Fundamen1a11y meets WSDOT Design Standards as proposed, .. 1'.400" TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING Figure I 2.A Concept Design Features ", , "'- - :tTj(~' ,r- ~ ~',' "',' ',.' .,. " n;... ' I .. Ir,-,.~--"', ,'T-" ~, "" r..,V ., '..:"H :~~,.r~,v',' ';,'~' . ' ï. ."~r .' . ,:. .' - . -.. .' ~~ ~-~' . . r ~J ~~ : , ,~ ' , \."" ,- ' ~~~~~,~~",- ,r'/ iJ. '-1.;~..[1 r r 'ÎN ,/,.." -,- -'.\ ",,"<#,"" , - , ,', ,,' . <. " - (If'! , , ,.. r- . .j t ,- " ..t ' ,~ ", , ,. . - -t,', ,:QlC " '. b: .- OPTION I 2: N296 DIAMND L296 ~ ,..~~ Federal Way ... ... p .. CH2MHILL ~:", '~' - ~"'"','.~"""t;::"-",,,,,, , ';'ì\ .,'-',-,." , !:'. - , , ..- ~it\: " ,..J ~ .. ~~, / :f,;'; ,;i, -.:, ,1..\::, }~~, .~ ,.~ hi-' h.. .' !'I .' '( -,\"',1 ~:~,:, t. J~,'l1 " ~ 1,\~""J1""""'~ ..\ ... J ~ " "Jr...~' ,"",'",' t ~ ¡;.r.r ' ..,- ì ;~', - ' , -, r. ,~,,:_, ,....,'tJ',,', ,J J~ ~ . -, . \ 't\ , . 11 ~, , . ~ ,ç-~ " - , ,- - -', ~ ~;., ". \", ,;', ~ . )l\,., - - ~" .:-... , . ' " ' .~"... '~~,' -(::, ,1,:..,-' .'.~"- , '~~~L- , '~,;'", -.\t-; , ~' . ""\ , ' "" ",'" (!- . 'I--'. ,fc.-..J ~r-y'" - \' ," , , çlt, ~',',,' \.-.., ' ( ~-+,",";"~" ,~,~ '. "'.'~. 0,..', .. ,- " ,~- , ,.; - . , ~ ¡,-",..' :,~,-,,\:-~,~., to t" ' \. ',- - . - -- . .. '. \ ( . , "', 5. 298th 5t:, ,~ if"...,. .t-""""'-,..J..ti,,,-," ',' tfj' .:- . ~! ffN.1. ' ' " :.¡ ,. f'. ~e ' , ,'t,', ~~,,'~ ,,-\ , . , ,'PT-") , 'j:"':i',' " ~'" I..., , .4~;r '-,:;~,.,! ';>".,-¡. ( ':. J\~", ' .~",." ""',ct '" . J I-,,' I" .. "'.,:, .,' 1'11,' -;tt¡.' lIt 'I ',:~..~~, ," .- , ~':"æ"" ~. , "", . i,"","'"',- --~.' (' , 'iJl, t(:;.;fr;;~ !fI, " ~ f! At, ,f ,,\ " 't 'Bi,:"*"",,""~,,,~.,,¡:,'.tf,' 11',-, I -:r(!; '(,.., .'~ '-. , ~'l' . ,of'íl' \1. ' ",J ' frt ',' ", "" ' I ' '¡;":/.,~ ~"~""iN :,v,';;i'~' . .- ,", --,1,',,",',,' r .r'J.. ,i ,:' .' " ,- r ' f: '~I' .. .:~ . . ~. " '- :':- ' .t.J:..~,' '!iJ!,' . ,~.: t~.....: OPTION I 2: N296 DIAMND L296 ,~"å Federal Way ~, LEGÊNO !JOSTINQ ~""H,O,Y,PROJECT 20- YEAR COUP, PLAN ELÐIENT _0 ~IOIOV£O "'-""'EO OF LANE, '" . «XI FT TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING Figure I 2.8 Concept Environmental Factors + », ... tðO X> CH2MHILL - 'J, t .~ ,"',- ,-- ~ - -- ,- L::GEI\D -,,",,'" ""HOVP'O,.."'7 ,C"'iCûMf' """"eM'" .un,1C ',~...., C" ,""'. '" , ~ 2 f i , . . .'~ ., '" .. j " ,",\ , ',. ., "', , ", .~ ; .. , .J ". <', "',; , . '>, / , , ? SCALE ----" .~ ." --~ "~ '00 FT ,,' ., " :" , .. ~' ~ '. :. " 'oj " " ., ~ v '> ~. ..,7 .'\¿ .. , ,~ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING .. . " 20th AvSiOUB S. û) "2 (") (") (") u) 24th Place S. Figure J3,A Concept Design Features --------- I J3 ¡ " '. . ,. " , l , " . , 't, "", ""1 "-k~ ,-.¡ '.¡ .., . -,,~- -~-,,-- OPTION J3 N338 PARCLO2 NWNE " '.. I I I I ~ '-- , ' , . , . .. .. ) CH2MHILL ~ . .~-.:.- Federal Way ""T..,-, "'.'IOYP'<OJEC """A" COMO P...."""E" "'°1>0>[0 ",,'eVE" w~9(.Ofl_S ; '>. "" "'" ~- ~ '"'400FT TM-9 LEVEL 2 SCREENING CH2MHILL CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: To: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: A. B. November 15,2004 Land Use/Transportation Committee David ~ Manager Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner ~ ~ Documenting progress to date and establishing a schedule for completing the seven-year update to the City's Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations POLICY QUESTION Should the City of Federal Way adopt a resolution documenting progress to date and establishing a schedule for completing the seven-year update to the City's Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan and development regulations? BACKGROUND According to a schedule established by RCW 36. 70A.130( 4), each city and county in Washington must take action to review and, if needed, revise its comprehensive plan and development regulations to ensure they comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA). The schedule for the City of F~deral Way's update is December 1,2004. The intent of the update is for a city to review its comprehensive plan and development regulations to ensure that the plan and regulations comply with the key requirements made to the GMA between 1995 and 2001. The update process includes four basic steps: 1. Establish a public participation program that identifies procedures and schedules for the review, evaluation, and possible review process; Review relevant plans and regulations; Analyze whether revisions are needed; Depending on the outcome of its review and analysis, each local government should adopt one of the following options by December 1,2004: (a) A resolution finding that, based on careful consideration of the facts and law, the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and development regulations comply with the GMA, and the jurisdiction has met its update requirement under RCW 36.70A130(1); (b) An amendment (or amendments) to the comprehensive plan and/or development regulations, so that the plan and regulations comply with the GMA; or (c) A combination of both items above. 2. 3. 4. The State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED), the office responsible for administering the GMA, recommends that a local government that has made significant progress on its update progress, but is unable to adopt all needed revisions by their update deadline, would be prudent in taking steps to demonstrate good faith and progress. In such cases, the following interim steps are recommended: (a) Adopt, by the update deadline, a resolution that documents local progress already made and contains a schedule for completing the update; (b) Continue moving ahead as quickly as possible to be in full compliance with the GMA. These interim steps do not relieve a local government of its update requirements, nor does it necessarily mean that a local government will be eligible for state grants and loans. " C. HISTORY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS The Federal Way City Council adopted its comprehensive plan on November 21, 1995, and adopted development regulations and a zoning map implementing the plan on July 2, 1996; and subsequently amended the comprehensive plan, land use map, and zoning map on December 23, 1998, September 14,2000, November 1,2001, March 27,2003, and July 20,2004. At the start of the City's major update process in 2002, RCW 36.70A.130 had required that cities complete their five-year update no later that September 1,2002. On April 2, 2002, Governor Locke signed Senate Bill (SB) 5841, which amended RCW 36.70A.130 by changing the September 1, 2002, deadline for the 5-Year Update to December 2004, and specified that subsequent updates shall occur every seven years rather than the previous requirement of every five years, making it a seven-year update. Regardless of this change, the City of Federal Way had committed to certain deadlines as a condition of receiving a GMA grant from the state, and therefore, completed its major (seven-year) update in March 2003. Subsequent to its seven-year update, the City has been made aware of new Hearings Boards decisions, which may affect its compliance with the GMA as follows: 1. Requirement to Adopt Reasonable Measures to ensure adequate capacity to accommodate targets. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.215, the Buildable Lands section requires the implementation of a review and evaluation program by King County and its cities. The Buildable Lands evaluation, which covered the period 1996 through 2000, found that the City of Federal Way's target of 6,188 for 2001-2022 exceeded its capacity of 5,538 by 650 households. RCW 36.70A.215(I)(b) requires that jurisdictions identify reasonable measures, other than adjusting urban growth areas, to increase its capacity in order to accommodate its targets. Therefore, as a follow up to the evaluation, cities or unincorporated areas that lack sufficient capacity to meet their Countywide Planning Policy growth targets are required to adopt reasonable measures to remedy those shortfalls. Reasonable measures include adoption of policies, regulations, incentives or other actions as part of their comprehensive plan and development regulations update. 2. Compliance with "bright line" rule as adopted by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (CPSGMHB). Recent CPSGMHB decisions have adopted a "bright line" rule, which requires comprehensive plans and development regulations within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) to have densities no less than four residential dwellings units per net acre. The board recognized a limited exception for 2 D. E. environmentally sensitive systems that are large in scope (e.g., watershed or drainage sub-basin), where their structure and functions are complex and their rank order value is high. The City of Federal Way has adopted zoning designations whose density vary from 24 units per acre in the RM 2400 Multi-Family zoning district to one unit per five acres in the Suburban Estates zone. Therefore, as a response to the CPSGMHB decision, the City must evaluate its low-density zones. COMPLIANCE WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT As part of its seven-year update and subsequent annual updates, the City has complied with the following steps: 1. Established a public participation program that identifies procedures and schedules for the review, evaluation, and possible review process. Pursuant to Article IX, Chapter 22 of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) and consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2), the City's public participation program consists of a docket program, notification of citizens interested in applying for amendments to the comprehensive plan and development regulations; publishing notices in the paper; and posting notices on all official notice boards. Reviewed relevant plans and regulations. This occurred as part of the seven-year update and subsequent annual updates. Analyzed whether revisions are needed. The City made revision in March 2003 and July 2004 and will continue to update its comprehensive plan and development regulations annually to comply with GMA requirements. 2. 3. As part of the 2005 Update, the City will adopt a Concurrency Management System; adopt reasonable measures to ensure that it has adequate capacity to accommodate its targets; and will research compliance with the GMA of density lower than four dwelling units per net acre. OPTIONS The Committee has the following options: 1. Move approval of the resolution documenting progress to date and establishing a schedule for completing the seven-year update to the City's Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan and development regulations to enactment on December 7, 2004. Move denial of the resolution documenting progress to date and establishing a schedule for completing the seven-year update to the City's Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. Move to amend the resolution documenting progress to date and establishing a schedule for completing the seven-year update to the City's Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan and development regulations for enactment on December 7,2004. 2. 3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION "I move approval of the resolution documenting progress to date and establishing a schedule for completing the seven-year update to the City's Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan to enactment on December 7,2004." 3 COMMITIEE RECOMMENDATION Forward Option I to the full City Council for approval on December 7, 2004. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT: Committee. Chair Committee Member Committee Member ATIACHED Draft Resolution documenting progress to date and establishing a schedule for completing the seven-year update to the City's Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. 1:\2004 Comprehensive Plan\Update Status\111504 Packet\LUTC Staff Report.doc/I 1/9/2004 10:01 AM 4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DOCUMENTING PROGRESS TO DATE AND ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING THE SEVEN- YEAR UPDATE TO THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act of 1990, as amended, (Chapter 36.70A RCW or "OMA") requires the City of Federal Way to adopt a comprehensive plan which includes a land use element (including a land use map), housing element, capital facilities plan element, utilities element, and transportation element (including transportation system map[s]); and WHEREAS, the GMA also requires the City of Federal Way to adopt development regulations implementing its comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, RCW 36. 70A.130( 4) requires that the City of Federal Way, a "fully planning" city within King County shall update its comprehensive plan and development regulations, as necessary, to reflect local needs, new data, and current laws; and WHEREAS, updates can be done on a continuing basis, but must be done in a deliberate manner every seven years according to a schedule established by RCW 36.70A130(4); and WHEREAS, the deliberate GMA Update process includes four basic steps: (1) establishment ofa public participation program that identifies procedures and schedules for the review, evaluation, and possible revision process; (2) review of relevant plans and regulations; (3) analysis of need for revisions; and (4) adoption of an appropriate resolution and/or amendments; and WHEREAS, RCW 36. 70A.130(l) requires counties and cities to "take legislative action" to detennine whether or not to revise a plan or regulation; and WHEREAS, the Federal Way City Council adopted its comprehensive plan with land use map (the "Plan") on November 21, 1995, and adopted development regulations and a zoning map implementing the Plan on July RES # , PAGE 1 2, 1996; and subsequently amended the comprehensive plan, land use map, and zoning map on December 23, 1998, September 14,2000, November 1,2001, March 27,2003, and July 20,2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the seven-year update process to its comprehensive plan on March 27, 2003; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article IX, Chapter 22 of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) and consist~nt with RCW 36.70A.130(2), the City accepts applications for amendments to its comprehensive plan and development regulations no later than September 30th of each year for review and action during the following year; and WHEREAS, under RCW 36.70A.130, the plan and development regulations are subject to continuing review and evaluation, but the plan may be amended no more than one time per year; and WHEREAS, as part of its comprehensive plan and development regulations update, the City has established a public participation program, which consists of a docket program, notification of citizens interested in applying for amendments to the comprehensive plan and development regulations; publishing notices in the paper; and posting notices on all official notice boards; and WHEREAS, as part of the seven-year update completed on March 27, 2003, and subsequent amendments, the City has updated all chapters of the comprehensive plan to reflect local needs, new data, and current laws, as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and WHEREAS, in compliance with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36. 70A.215), the City of Federal Way has detennined the actual density of housing development, and has detennined that development to be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, prior to the update deadline of December I, 2004, the City has reviewed its comprehensive plan and development regulations and has detennined which revisions to the plans and regulations have been completed and which revisions are still outstanding; and WHEREAS, subsequent to its seven-year update, the City has been made aware of new Hearings Boards decisions, which may affect its compliance with the Growth Management Act; and RES # , PAGE 2 NOw, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Federal Way does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. Compliance A. The City of Federal Way comprehensive plan and development regulations, as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, is in substantial compliance with the GMA. B. The City will continue to update its comprehensive plan and development regulations annually. C. As part of its 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update, which commenced October 1,2004, the City will update its Transportation element to address concurrency requirements, as necessary; the Housing element of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan will be amended as necessary to adopt policies that facilitate the provision of sufficient development capacity to accommodate its housing targets for the 2001-2022 planning period of 6, 188 households; the Official Zoning Map and/or its development regulations shall be amended as necessary to address reasonable measures to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate its housing targets for the 2001-2022 planning period of 6,188 households; and the comprehensive plan designations and zoning map will be amended as necessary based on a review of existing comprehensive plan designations and zones with densities of less than four dwelling units per net acre to detennine whether they contain environmentally sensitive systems that are large in scope (e.g., watershed or drainage sub-basin), their structure and functions are complex and their rank order value is high. Section 2. Severability. The provisions of this resolution are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion ofthis resolution, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the resolution, or the validity of its application to any other persons or circumstances. Section 3. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affinned. Section 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. RES # , PAGE 3 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way at a regular meeting ofthe City Council on the day of ,2004. ApPROVED: Mayor, Dean McColgan A TrEST: City Clerk, N. Christine Green, CMC ApPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, Patricia A. Richardson FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: RESOLUTION No.: 1:\2004 Comprehensive Plan\Update Status\111504 Packet\Resolution.doCill/09/2004 9:58 AM RES # , PAGE 4